Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
(By Order)

second Reading deferred till Thursday.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
(By Order)

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL
(By Order)

HOLY TRINITY HOUNSLOW BILL
(By Order)

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs by what proportions the local authority house-building programmes in the borough and rural district of Newcastle-under-Lyme have risen or fallen in the last three years; for what reasons; and what steps he will now take to help the councils to enlarge them.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I would refer the hon. Member to the statistics which are published quarterly as an Appendix to the Housing Return. During the past two years, housing authorities have been free to determine the size of their annual programmes of house-building, and variations have been their

responsibility. I have already advised the House that during 1958, as part of the measures to counter inflation, there must be some slowing down of house-building by local authorities; and I am not, therefore, prepared to encourage them to enlarge their programmes at the moment.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that that is a grossly misleading reply? The experience of the last few years is that the Government have piled restriction upon restriction on the local authorities in the form of higher interest charges that will postpone the fulfilment of the housing needs of my constituents, who are grossly dissatisfied with the situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give an assurance that he will not impose any further restriction upon them?

Mr. Brooke: I deny entirely the insinuation in the first part of the supplementary question. I have indicated to a number of local authorities, all of whom have been quite free to determine their own programmes, that if they found themselves in financial difficulty they might well look at the level of their existing rents.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that he has now abandoned what he called his slum clearance campaign?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir.

Rent Act

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the number of notices of evictions under the Rent Act, 1957, given since December and due to be effected in London next October, he will introduce amending legislation to postpone these evictions until alternative accommodation is available.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of instances in the past two months of threats of eviction next October to old-age pensioners who have lived in rented houses for over twenty years because they have refused to buy their houses, if he will introduce legislation to amend the Rent Act, 1957, in order to prevent such evictions.

Mr. H. Brooke: Service of notice to quit does not necessarily mean that the tenant will not still be able to make a new agreement with his landlord. I recognise that some old people, particularly those who are occupying rented houses which are too large for them, may require to move, but I am not convinced that it will necessarily be impossible for them to find alternative accommodation. I have further suggested to local authorities ways in which they can help old people who may have to move and who cannot find alternative accommodation for themselves.

Mr. Lipton: Where has the Minister got the crazy idea from that sufficient alternative accommodation will be available to rehouse evicted London families in October? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that quite a volume of public opinion may sympathise with tenants who barricade their homes in October rather than be thrown on to the streets? The Minister is going to be the most hated man in Britain before he is very much older.

Mr. Brooke: I am concerned to do what I believe to be right. I have already informed the House that I believe that the number of people who will actually have to leave their homes by October will be very very small as compared with the figures that are being bandied about nowadays.

Mr. Lipton: Rubbish.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the problems that are likely to arise in October could be solved now if he would authorise the Public Works Loan Board to make funds available to local authorities for house purchase without insisting on their first going to the market?

Mr. Brooke: A local authority which desires to raise funds for housing purposes or any other purpose should first go to the market, and if it cannot raise a loan in the market at a reasonable rate of interest it can then apply to the Public Works Loan Board. That has been the position since 1955.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some cases have been notified where tenants, although willing to pay an increased rent, have been told that the landlord refuses to accept any

new agreement with an increased rent and that they are to be evicted? Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced this legislation, that some tenants willing to pay increased rents and to enter new agreements would be evicted? Will he do something about that?

Mr. Brooke: I have advised tenants never to accept the first communication from the landlord as the final one but to seek professional advice and enter negotiations with the landlord. I well realise that in some cases either the landlord may need vacant possession of the property for some good purpose or it may not be possible to reach a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations, but I repeat that the number of people who will have to leave their homes and will not be able to make arrangements for satisfactory alternative accommodation will be very small in relation to the figures now being talked about.

Mr. Jay: Can the Minister say what is the proper advice for a London Member of Parliament to give to constituents threatened with eviction in October who ask him what they can do?

Mr. Brooke: The first advice to give them is to seek negotiation with their landlord and to take professional advice on the course of those negotiations.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that there are many people who have more than one house and/or flat for personal occupation; and whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to ensure that such people will only be able to claim one such establishment as their place of residence, making over their additional accommodation to the appropriate local authority for use by these authorities to rehouse families rendered homeless by the Rent Act, 1957.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member's proposal seems to me wholly impracticable.

Mr. Lewis: Whether it is impracticable or not, is it not a fact that hundreds of thousands of tenants have been and are receiving notices of eviction? Is it not immoral for the Minister to arrange for the eviction of those people while


thousands of people have one, two, three or four homes? Would it not be better and easier to give some of those homes to evicted people so that they might have a roof over their heads?

Mr. Brooke: I am well aware that a number of hon. Members have more than one home, but I think this would be a clumsy and impracticable method of proceeding. I would remind the hon. Member that local authorities have power to make compulsory purchase orders if they wish.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will give the reasons why his records do not permit him to give the number of persons who have protested against the Rent Act, 1957; and if he will also give the reasons which prevent his Department from having an investigation and examination made of the 1,800 letters he has received on this subject to ascertain the number who have expressed themselves in support of, and against, this Act, respectively.

Mr. H. Brooke: No running record has been kept classifying the letters, and some indeed would defy classification. To undertake an analysis now would take a great deal of time to no purpose except to show that the Rent Act is a Measure on which different people hold different views; and that is known already.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Minister seen his local paper, which gives thousands of cases of people being evicted without any alternative of negotiating? Will he look at that? If it is a question of finding time, will he let me have the 1,800 letters, as I can assure him that I can distinguish between those which are for him and those which are against him and put a suitable Question on the Order Paper so that hon. Members may know the result?

Mr. Brooke: I can certainly inform the House that all the letters I have received from the hon. Member have been definitely against the Rent Act.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will consult the Minister of Health and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance with a view to introducing some protection against eviction under the Rent

Act, 1957, of persons crippled by poliomyelitis or other disabilities.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am afraid that it would not be practicable to distinguish between classes of decontrolled tenants in the way suggested. But any disabled tenant who receives notice to quit should make certain that the landlord knows all the circumstances, and I hope that it will usually be possible to arrange a renewal of the tenancy. If any such tenant does have to move, I am sure he will get sympathetic treatment from the local authority.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that there are such cases, where the tenants have given all the facts and information to the landlords and yet are still given notices to quit? Is he also aware that in many cases they have erected garages or sheds for housing vehicles, or otherwise adapted their premises to their disability, and that it is a particular hardship to be evicted? Will not he examine the extent of the problem to see what protection he can give to these people who have received quite enough cruel blows without this additional one being inflicted upon them?

Mr. Brooke: In any such case, if the landlord knows the facts and is still not prepared to withdraw the notice to quit, I should strongly advise the disabled person to contact the local welfare authority.

Mr. Mitchison: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will cause an investigation to be made into the excessive rents now being asked in respect of decontrolled houses with a view to taking action to obviate grave hardship whilst there is still a housing shortage.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will so amend the Rent Act, 1957, as to provide some security of tenure and a right of appeal against extortionate rents being charged in cases where tenants take up new tenancies of property in a bad state of repair.

Mr. H. Brooke: I do not think such action is needed. The fact is that the


great majority of landlords are not asking excessive rents. Tenants, if they are in doubt, should take expert advice and should refuse to pay more than what they are advised is a reasonable market rent having regard to the condition of the property. If they do that landlords who ask too much will have to reduce their figures or else risk being left with their property empty.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless he takes some action before 1st October, many elderly people will be forced to get out of houses in which they have lived for many years because they cannot afford the rent, with all the misery that this entails? Does not the Minister appreciate that unless he changes his present cold-blooded attitude to this problem he will go down in history as the Minister of Evictions?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. My attitude is not cold-blooded. I say once again that I am quite certain that the great majority of these cases will be found to be soluble, and I have specially asked the local authorities to give their attention to the cases of old people when difficulties arise.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Minister not recognise that many people are being swindled into accepting exchanges of houses purely in order that the landlords can acquire the right to charge any kind of rent without any security at all, and will he not at least give some advice to tenants to draw the danger of this situation to their attention?

Mr. Brooke: This is the most valuable place of all in which to issue advice, and the advice I have given repeatedly through the House of Commons is that everyone affected should seek expert advice before taking any decision.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has considered the resolution of the Wood Green Council, a copy of which has been sent to him, which authorises negotiation for the purchase by the council of properties from which tenants are under notice to quit following the passing of the Rent Act, 1957; and what reply he has given.

Mr. H. Brooke: This resolution, which was passed on 27th November last, was not sent to me until I asked for it after the hon. Member put down her Question. The resolution does no more than authorise the collection of information about tenants under notice to quit and unable to find alternative accommodation, in order that the question of negotiating for the purchase of the properties concerned may be considered. No comment by me appears to be called for at this stage.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that, out of the applications received by the Wood Green Council from tenants due to be evicted next October, the authority has examined in detail 68 cases, of which more than half are from tenants over 60, 19 are from tenants over 70, and two are from tenants over 80, and that more than half have sub-tenants who are likely to find great difficulty in claiming protection under the Act? This being the situation eight months before next October, in one part of my constituency, does the Minister not realise the tragedies which will occur next October unless he does something about it?

Mr. Brooke: Whatever the circumstances, the first action to be taken is for the council itself to decide what it wants to do.

Mr. Jay: But does the Minister not really understand that there will be housing chaos in London in October? As there is now an overwhelming demand for the amendment of the Rent Act, why does he still refuse to do anything?

Mr. Brooke: I do not accept for one moment the first part of the right hon Gentleman's question.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will sanction exceptional expenditure by local housing authorities who seek to provide alternative homes for people evicted in October, 1958, under the terms of the Rent Act, 1957; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am always prepared to consider proposals requiring my sanction when I know what they are.

Mr. Thomas: But does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that local authorities are being put in a most impossible position by his present callous indifference and his incitement to bad landlords, and does he not think that he has some obligation to local government in this matter?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman's question was couched in vague terms, and I am not at all clear what action local authorities might, in the hon. Gentleman's view, want to take which would not be covered by their existing statutory powers.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that, unless local authorities are able to provide shelter for these people, we shall have a major crisis in certain cities and towns of the country? Therefore, does he not appreciate that my question is directed to the point that local authorities should be empowered to build extra accommodation for these people, which they can only do through an extra grant?

Mr. Brooke: The point is that I cannot grant loan sanction to a local authority until it has applied to me for loan sanction.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many old people are likely to be affected by the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act within the next twelve months; and what is the nature of the assistance which, as indicated in his Department's Circular No. 55/57, dated 20th November, 1957, he expects local authorities with very large housing waiting lists to be able to give to them.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have no figures showing how many old people are likely to need assistance, though I would not expect the number to be large. I think the hon. and learned Member will find my suggestions fully explained in the Circular.

Mr. Jones: Is it not sheer humbug for the Minister to ask local authorities with vast housing lists to help old people evicted as a result of his Rent Act, and is he not aware that in West Ham, for instance, the rehousing of families of young and old people living in foul slum conditions is being held up because there is no alternative accommodation even for them?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I have great faith in local authorities carrying out their duties and responsibilities. The hon. and learned Member seems even yet not to have realised that the effect of the Rent Act will be to increase and not to diminish the amount of accommodation.

Subsidies

Mr. Kirk: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) whether he will give a list of those local authorities who have applied for industrial subsidy under Section 3 (3) (d) of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, showing which applications have been granted, and the length of time elapsing between application and authorisation in each case; and
(2) when he will be able to answer the application of the Strood Rural District Council, dated 4th July, 1957, for an industrial subsidy under Section 3 of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, in respect of the erection of 300 houses for accommodating persons coming into the area to meet the urgent needs of the new oil refinery at the Isle of Grain.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the local authorities which have had applications approved or rejected, and of those whose applications are still under consideration. I could not without a great deal of work say how long each case has taken, but the period between application and approval has usually been short. Applications which raise general issues of policy are bound to take longer. Strood Rural District Council's application was one such case, but I have now informed the council of my agreement to its providing some houses with the aid of this special subsidy.

Mr. Kirk: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if it is not true that he has approved only half the number for which the council asked? In view of the great shortage of houses in this very remote rural area, could he not look at the matter again?

Mr. Brooke: The exact number will have to be settled in discussion with the council. I hope my hon. Friend approves of my action in having reached a decision on a grant which had been too long delayed.

Following are the names:


APPLICATIONS FOR SUBSIDY UNDER SECTION 3 (3) (d) OF HOUSING SUBSIDIES ACT, 1956


Approved
Rejected
Still under consideration


Abercarn U.D.C.
Amlwch U.D.C.
Billingham U.D.C.


Basford R.D.C.
Bebington B.
Bridgend U.D.C.


Bedford B.
Bedford B.
Dorking and Horley U.D.C.


Bedlingtonshire U.D.C.
Beverley B.
East Kesteven R.D.C.


Billingham U.D.C.
Brynmawr U.D.C.
Ellesmere Port B.


Bingham R.D.C.
Camborne and Redruth U.D.C.
Eston U.D.C.


Blackwell R.D.C.
Chard B.
Guisborough U.D.C.


Cannock U.D.C.
Chelmsford B.
Hereford B.


Castle Donnington R.D.C.
Chippenham R.D.C.
Milford Haven U.D.C.


Connah's Quay U.D.C.
Coalville U.D.C.
New Forest R.D.C.


Coventry C.B.
Crook and Willington U.D.C.
Newport C.B.C.


East Retford R.D.C.
Dunstable B.
Penybont R.D.C.


Ennerdale R.D.C.
Eastleigh B.
Port Talbot B.


Erith B.
Exmouth U.D.C.
Strood R.D.C.


Fylde R.D.C.
Fareham U.D.C.



Glynoorrwg U.D.C.
Gateshead C.B.
TOTAL: 14


Golborne U.D.C.
Grimsby R.D.C.



Kirkby-in-Ashfield U.D.C.
Haslingden B.



Llanelly R.D.C.
Hindley U.D.C.



Maesteg U.D.C.
Ketton R.D.C.



Maldon R.D.C.
Llangefni U.D.C.



Mansfield Woodhouse U.D.C.
Llanidloes B.



Merthyr Tydfil C.B.C.
Luton R.D.C.



Morpeth B.
Mildenhall R.D.C.



Mountain Ash U.D.C.
*Oakengates U.D.C.



Newark-on-Trent B.
Paignton U.D.C.



*Oakengates U.D.C.
*Portishead U.D.C.



Osgoldcross R.D.C.
Royston U.D.C.



*Portishead U.D.C.
*Rugeley U.D.C.



Repton R.D.C.
Runcorn U.D.C.



*Rugeley U.D.C.
*St. Albans R.D.C.



*St. Albans R.D.C.
St. Asaph R.D.C.



St. Helens B.
Scunthorpe B.



*Sedgefield R.D.C.
*Sedgefield R.D.C.



*Stone R.D.C.
Shildon U.D.C.



Tewkesbury B.
Sleaford U.D.C.



Thornbury R.D.C.
Stocksbridge U.D.C.



Thurrock U.D.C.
*Stone R.D.C.



Wakefield C.B.
Swindon B.



Wantage R.D.C.
Tamworth R.D.C.



Wellington R.D.C.
Tynemouth C.B.




Walton and Weybridge U.D.C.



TOTAL: 41
Whitehaven B.




TOTAL: 43



* Authorities which lave had an application approved and another rejected.

Slum Clearance

Mr. MacColl: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that the proposals for slum clearance submitted by local authorities under Section 1 of the Housing Repairs and Rent Act, 1954, do not provide an accurate assessment of the amount of work to be done; and whether he will invite them to submit further proposals, based on more detailed surveys, and taking into account, among other things, deterioration due to the effluxion of time

since the original conclusions were reached.

Mr. H. Brooke: Local authorities still have three years' work in hand from their first five-year programmes of slum clearance. They are free to submit modifying proposals at any time, but in my view a second comprehensive survey now would be premature. It would only interfere with the main task of clearance.

Mr. MacColl: Is the Minister aware that the survey was made in a great hurry in response to pressure from his


Department and was described in the document as being only a broad estimate? In view of his sensitiveness to misleading figures, does he not think it time to bring it up to date?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member says the survey was made in a great hurry, but it was made in accordance with an Act passed by Parliament. I think that 847,000 houses were estimated to be unfit. There are those to be cleared and a great deal of work to be done. Any local authority which wishes to put forward modifying proposals is fully at liberty to do so at any time.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that there are a great many houses on the borderline and houses are getting older, and that therefore a further survey would show more houses which ought to be cleared?

Mr. Brooke: I and my hon. Friends are more anxious to press on with the work of clearance than to engage staff on the task of further surveys.

Rochdale (Loans)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will publish in HANSARD a table of figures giving the monthly amounts of moneys, for which he gave loan sanction to the appropriate local authority in Rochdale, for house-building and other local authority services for each of the months from October, 1951 to October, 1957; and, on the basis of these capital sums having to be repaid over sixty years with the current rates of interest in being at the time of borrowing, what the total cost of repayment of capital and interest will be for each of these borrowings at the end of 60 years.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is unable to see what value there could be in publishing the figures of loans sanctioned month by month over a period of seventy-two months. As regards the second part of the Question, the assumptions contained in it are so unreal that it would be a waste of time to work out the figures.

Mr. Lewis: Are we to take it from that reply that the Minister is afraid to confirm the report that has been published

by an independent authority that a house which was costing £1,500 in 1951 is now costing a local authority £6,000 on repayment? Does not this disprove the oft-repeated claim of the Government that they want to combat inflation and does it not show that they know local authorities regard this as the worst Government they have ever had?

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member can infer what he likes. My right hon. Friend would not be a party to wasting public money to produce hypothetical figures.

Mr. Lindgren: Would the hon. Gentleman admit that the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) are correct, and that they show an undue proportion of interest as compared with land, wages and materials?

Mr. Bevins: That may be so—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is so."]—but the Question assumes that the Rochdale local authority always borrows over a period of sixty years and assumes that it borrows at the current rate of interest, which is nonsense.

Farm Cottages (Improvement Grants)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take regarding the practice of certain local authorities of refusing to consider applications for grant under the Housing Act, 1954, for improvements to farm cottages.

Mr. H. Brooke: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 3rd December, I think that this is a matter which must be left to local authorities to determine. The information which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) on 4th February about the record of rural district councils in relation to improvement grants shows that these authorities have done very well; and it is in the rural districts that the farm cottages are found.

Mr. du Cann: Would my right hon. Friend say what reply he has made to the representations he has received from the National Farmers' Union on this subject? Would he not agree that it is extremely important that these grants


should work freely in order that the farm worker may be able to bring up his standard of living to that enjoyed by his urban brother?

Mr. Brooke: I am extremely anxious that local authorities in rural as well as in urban areas should use this grant. I have no power to compel them to do so. My hon. Friend will, I think, be pleased to hear that in rural districts the number of grants made in the fourth quarter of last year was greater than in the third quarter.

Mr. Champion: Will not the Minister encourage local authorities to apply for and use this grant, having regard to the fact that last year there was again a further serious loss of farm workers from the land?

Mr. Brooke: As I have said, I am anxious that local authorities should use this grant, but Parliament gave me no power to compel them to do so.

Overcrowding (Metropolitan Boroughs)

Mr. A. Evans: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the amount of overcrowding in each of the Metropolitan boroughs.

Mr. H. Brooke: The information desired is not available, for local authorities have not reported on overcrowding in their districts since the end of the war, as they have been fully occupied with slum clearance and their other housing responsibilities.

Mr. Evans: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he would be better informed about the London housing problem if he had this information? Will he now use the powers that Parliament gave him last year in the 1957 Housing Act and require the local authorities concerned to supply him with this information so that he may know the position?

Mr. Brooke: Metropolitan boroughs are free agents and can make what investigation they wish and, if serious cases of overcrowding are brought to their notice, can use the powers given under Section 90 of the 1957 Act.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to find out about overcrowding in the Metropolitan

area—he must know perfectly well that there is a great deal of it—just as he thought it is his duty to find out about another matter—slum houses?

Mr. Brooke: The main object is to get on with slum clearance and other matters, rather than divert staff. It is quite true that twenty-five years ago one-eighth of the population of London was living at the rate of more than two persons to a room, but by now it has fallen to a mere fraction of that.

Mr. Lipton: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Brooke: For one thing, I know by reference to the 1951 Census, and there has been a further improvement since then.

Mr. Mitchison: Why does the right hon. Gentleman obstinately neglect overcrowding?

Mr. Evans: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity of raising this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Elderly Persons

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what replies he has received from local authorities to his recent circular on housing the olds; and whether he asked for replies to his request for action.

Mr. H. Brooke: The circular to which I think my hon. Friend is referring. No. 55 of 20th November, 1957, does not ask for replies. Its purpose is to secure action by local authorities, as I think it will, rather than a statement of their intentions.

Dame Irene Ward: Would I be right in assuming that local authorities taking any action towards this very desirable end will not find any obstacles, economic or otherwise, put in their path in providing this very necessary form of housing?

Mr. Brooke: I am extremely anxious that local authorities shall implement Circular No. 55 to the full. Of course, I should not wish them, in doing so, to indulge in unnecessary extravagance of expenditure, but, as is perfectly well


known, the local authorities can fulfil their duties under that Circular while at the same time paying due regard to the importance of not wasting money.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what assistance he intends to give to local authorities who implement the suggestion in Circular 55–57 by purchasing properties for the rehousing of elderly people evicted under the Rent Act, 1957.

Mr. H. Brooke: An Exchequer contribution under the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954 is available for the improvement or conversion of houses purchased by local authorities.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister not realise that this Circular does not increase in any way the financial allowance by the Government to local authorities, and is it not monstrous that local authorities should have to carry so much of the loss on conversions when they are merely carrying out the ambulance work left by his most disastrous Act?

Mr. Brooke: For the purposes mentioned in my original Answer, an Exchequer contribution equal to three-quarters of the estimated annual loss which may be incurred by the local authority over a period of 20 years is already available, and I consider that that should be sufficient.

Mr. Gibson: Does the Minister not realise that the capital cost of these conversions for old people, where necessary, is so heavy that it is quite impossible for many authorities, even with the subsidies referred to, effectively to do the job? Will he not, therefore, do something to get the interest charges on the capital costs of these properties reduced?

Mr. Brooke: I have already pointed out to the House that 75 per cent. of the annual loss can be met by the Exchequer.

Homeless Families

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will set up a departmental committee to consider the provision of accommodation for homeless families, especially in view of the increase in homelessness which will result from the Rent Act, 1957.

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that such action is called for.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the Minister completely unaware of the difficulties which many local authorities already have in dealing with homeless families for whom they have at present to provide, and does he not care at all what happens to the thousands of people who will be turned out in October?

Mr. Brooke: I care a great deal, and I have already said that, while there will be no amendment of the Rent Act, I am quite sure that the great majority of difficult cases will, in fact, find a solution before October.

Mrs. Jeger: On a point of order. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

Compulsory Purchase Orders

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what considerations he normally takes into account in deciding whether or not to confirm a compulsory purchase order for housing purposes.

Mr. H. Brooke: The local authority must satisfy me that it needs the land in order to meet its obligations as a housing authority, that the land ought to be used for housing or, at any rate, that there is no objection to so doing, and that the case for public acquisition is strong enough to outweigh any objections that may be lodged by owners and others affected.

Mr. Robinson: Can the Minister say why he refused permission for a St. Pancras Borough Council rehousing scheme on the ground that there was no provision made for the private lock-up garages which at present occupy the site? Is this not a perfectly frivolous decision, and are we coming to the situation when shelter for motor cars is more important than shelter for human beings?

Mr. Brooke: The main reason for rejecting this order was the refusal of the St. Pancras Borough Council to provide alternative garage accommodation, for which there is a very great need in this


area and for which it would have been perfectly possible to provide had the council so wished.

Requisitioned Dwellings (Metropolitan Boroughs)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many dwellings are still requisitioned by Metropolitan borough councils.

Mr. H. Brooke: On 31st December, 1957, the Metropolitan borough councils held on requisition 26,756 dwellings.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all these people have to get out by 1960? Is he aware that in Lambeth alone, even allowing for the properties expected to be taken over by the owners or bought by the council or released through people moving out, 1,000 families will be homeless as a result of the ending of requisition? What will he do about that? Will he please not tell me to go and seek professional advice on the matter?

Mr. Brooke: The release of requisitioned dwellings by Metropolitan councils has been going on at a considerable rate, and I am anxious that it should be completed by the date stated in the Act, and that is 1960.

Mr. Lipton: It cannot be done in the time.

Caravans

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what legislation he has in mind to meet the needs of those who, subject to proper safeguards, prefer caravans for permanent residence; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: As my right hon. Friend said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) on 30th July last, he cannot hold out any early prospect of amending legislation. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of my right hon. Friend's statement.

Mr. Gower: As my hon. Friend has said that many local authorities take the view that caravans provide sub-standard accommodation, will he make it clear

that that is not the view of his Department, but that it takes the view that caravan accommodation is often superior to accommodation in private houses?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

East Riding Development Plan

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when his Department will complete its study of the East Riding Development Plan, which was submitted to his Department in 1952.

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry that this is taking so long. My right hon. Friend hopes to let the county council have his views on its plan in the next three months, although the remaining stages after that are bound to take some time. Notwithstanding the absence of an approved development plan, applications for permission to carry out particular developments can be made and decided.

Mr. Wall: While thanking my hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask if he is aware that this delay in approving the plan is causing local authorities serious embarrassment and inhibiting building by local authorities and private enterprise?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the difficulties, but there were about 400 objections to this plan which have to be considered. We will, however, press on with it with all speed.

Industrial Processes (Smell Nuisance)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many complaints have been submitted to the Alkali Inspectorate from all local authorities that certain industrial processes produce an offending odour reminiscent of tom-cats in large numbers; in how many instances has a complete remedy been applied; and if he will state the length of time on average between complaint and cessation of the odour.

Mr. Bevins: I am not an expert on the habits of the animals referred to in the Question, but I understand that the alkali inspectors have received reports of smells of this kind on a number of occasions. In only one case were the smells due to a process registered under the Alkali Act. In that case, strict precautions have been enforced, but there have, nevertheless, been occasional minor escapes of an accidental nature which have led to further complaints.

Dr. Stross: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this particular and undetectable odour was discussed at great length some time ago during the Committee stage of the Clean Air Bill? Is he further aware that at that time there were serious complaints about there being very few alkali inspectors, and that promises were made that the number would be increased to twenty? Will he tell the House how far the Department has been successful in increasing the number and whether we can have some hope that the inspectors will tackle these offensive problems as quickly as possible?

Mr. Bevins: I think I am right in saying that that particular case, where the odour was due to a process which is registrable under the Alkali Act, took place in the Birmingham area and not in the Potteries. I think there is a later Question which refers to the Potteries.

Mr. Shinwell: Whitewashing the tomcats.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when the Alkali Inspectorate first received a complaint from the local authority of Stoke-on-Trent that the north-western part of the city was affected by a tom-cat odour; and what action has been taken to free the City from this unpleasant visitation.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) how long it is estimated it will take to free the northern area of Stoke-on-Trent from the offensive smell which now exists;
(2) if he is aware of the offensive smell which exists in the northern district of Stoke-on-Trent; and what steps are being taken by the Alkali Inspectorate to remedy this.

Mr. Bevins: Complaints about this smell were first received in April, 1956. Investigation showed that it was caused by the dumping of acid sludge from a benzole refinery. This process is not registrable under the Alkali Act, so that statutory responsibility for the abatement of nuisance rests with the local authority and not with the Alkali Inspectorate. I understand, however, that, after informal consultation with the alkali inspector, plant for the treatment of the sludge is being installed and should soon be in operation.

Dr. Stross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is it not the fact, however, that, on investigation, the local authority of Stoke-on-Trent found that the process was not within its own jurisdiction, because this particular plant was situated in another local authority's territory?

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry that I cannot answer that particular point, but I do assure the hon. Member that we shall maintain close contact with the firm and with the local authority to see that things go along all right.

Mrs. Slater: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some more detailed information as to how long he thinks that it will take before the smell can be eradicated, because it is recurring time and time again?

Mr. Bevins: As I say, the new plant should be in operation in a month or so, and we shall keep in close touch on this point.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the transfer of these industries to the Alkali Inspectorate will shortly be the subject of an Order which he will lay before this House? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends and myself are gravely concerned about this transfer and, having defeated the Government on this very point in Committee, we shall propose to pray against the Order at the appropriate moment?

Mr. Bevins: The first part of my hon. Friend's Question is perfectly true, and the matter, of course, will be debated.

Pottery Industry, Stoke-on-Trent (Smoke Control)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he


has noted the transformation that has taken place in the atmosphere of Stoke-on-Trent, and the great saving of raw coal, since the introduction of firing pottery in continuous kilns using smokeless fuel; and whether he will state the reasoning that led him to place the pottery industry as a whole into the care of the Alkali Inspectorate.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has been glad to note these developments in the pottery industry and hopes that they will continue. He does not propose to schedule the whole of the industry under the Alkali Act, but only those works in which coal or oil-fired intermittent kilns are still in use. These present intractable problems in regard to the prevention of dark smoke.

Dr. Stross: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that answer is not very satisfactory and will not meet with the agreement of those who know the problems, in the City of Stoke-on-Trent? Has he noted that his answer could have been given for the whole of the industry in 1938, when the problem would have been assumed to be intractable, but that the general view now held by experts in the area is that there is no need whatsoever for raw coal to be used in almost any of the industrial processes used in firing pottery, or in other firing processes in industry? Will he give the matter further consideration, please, for we now have considerable experience in this matter?

Mr. Bevins: As I say, my right hon. Friend certainly hopes that these developments in firing in the pottery industry will go ahead, but meanwhile he thinks it wise that these more intractable problems should come under the supervision of the Alkali Inspectorate.

Mrs. Slater: Is it not for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman has just given that the industry should not be scheduled as such and taken away from the supervision of the inspectors in the local areas? It seems to me that the people in the local area have a detailed knowledge of the problems, which therefore should be kept under their control and not under the remote control of alkali inspectors in Birmingham.

Mr. Bevins: We shall certainly have regard to what has been said in this

House this afternoon, but meanwhile my right hon. Friend is of the opinion that these difficult cases should come under the Alkali Inspectorate.

Polesworth, Dordon and Warton Sewerage Scheme

l4, 15 and 16. Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what reply he has given to the request from the clerk of the Atherstone Rural District Council to receive a deputation on the subject of the proposed Polesworth, Dordon and Warton Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Scheme;
(2) whether he has considered the letter from the clerk of the Atherstone Rural District Council stating that, in the view of the council, the Polesworth, Dordon and Warton Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Scheme is eligible for grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts, 1944 and 1955; and what was his reply;
(3) whether he will accept for grant aid the proposed Polesworth, Dordon and Warton Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Scheme, in view of the fact that the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, permits the Minister to make grants in aid of rural sewerage schemes where such schemes are associated with the provision or improvement of piped water supplies.

Mr. Bevins: Grant has been refused on this sewerage scheme, and my right hon. Friend is now considering a letter from the hon. Member urging that his decision should be reconsidered, and also a request from the clerk to the Atherstone Rural District Council that a deputation should be received. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Atmospheric Pollution (Control)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the dissatisfaction of local authorities with the placing of control over atmospheric pollution in the hands of the already overburdened Alkali Inspectorate; and if he will reconsider the question of putting control over atmospheric pollution from tileries in the hands of local authority officers.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any proposal that responsibility for the control of air pollution in general should be transferred from local authorities to the Alkali Inspectorate. The Clean Air Act, 1956, has given local authorities additional powers and duties. The proposed extension of the Alkali Act relates only to a limited number of industrial works in which the prevention of air pollution presents special technical difficulties. This includes some tileries, but not all.

Mr. Swingler: Has the Parliamentary Secretary noted that on both sides of the House there is considerable opposition to this proposal to transfer this control to the Alkali Inspectorate, and that it is a poor tribute to the progress made in North Staffs that the pottery industry should be picked on as one of these cases? Will he, therefore, reconsider—relating specifically to the pottery industry—leaving the power in the hands of the local council?

Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, this flows from the recommendation made by the Beaver Committee, and it was, I think, accepted by my right hon. Friend. I should like to emphasise that, in the case of tile works, it is proposed only to schedule those in which coal or oil-fired intermittent kilns are used; that is to say, those that present the most intractable problems arising from smoke—only a limited number.

Mr. Mitchison: As the Alkali Inspectorate comes under his Ministry, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are enough of these inspectors for this extended work, and has he taken steps to recruit any others?

Mr. Bevins: That does not quite arise from the Question, but, speaking from memory. I think that the present number is about twenty, and we are certainly in the process of enlisting the services of additional officers.

Caravan Sites

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to speed up and make more effective the operation of existing laws relating to unapproved caravan sites.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has this problem in mind, but he cannot hold out any early prospect of legislation.

Mr. Remnant: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the racket that is going on in this matter owing to the time taken in the lengthy procedure of the law? Is he aware that, as soon as a final decision has been reached, the caravans move to a neighbouring field and the same process has to be gone through all over again? Does he know that that is being carried on ad infinitum, and will he not do something to stop it?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. My right hon. Friend realises the trouble under the existing law and that it is possible to occupy an unapproved caravan site for perhaps some six to nine months and for the operator then to move to an adjacent site. I am bound to repeat that at the moment—and there are different views on this question—there is no prospect of early legislation.

Land (Sale)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in how many cases other than that concerning Thrift Street, North Shields, he has given advice to a local authority to enable them to sell their property at a price lower than the current market price.

Mr. H. Brooke: The advice which I gave to the Tynemouth Council was designed to enable the Council to sell the land back to the original owner at its current market value unaffected by any planning permission, that being what they wished to do. Local authorities usually sell land at its current market value; but there are some cases in which it has been agreed, for special reasons, that they may sell at a lower price. I have no record of the number of cases in which this has been done.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Minister admitted to me in a Written Reply to my Question on 17th December last that:
The Housing Acts, however, require a local authority, when selling land bought for housing which they no longer need, to sell 'at the best price …that can reasonably be obtained'; "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957; Vol. 580. c. 45]


Is not this exactly a case where this should be applied, because this was a case of land bought for housing but no longer needed for that purpose in which the Minister gave his advice to the local authority to help them to evade selling it at the best possible price they could get?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. The local authority bought this land for housing and then enhanced its value by approving its use for industry. It then asked me whether it could sell it back to the original owner at its housing value. I said that it could not do that, because the law prevented it doing it. I further told the authority that if it thought fit to revoke the planning permission, it would then be able to carry out its intention, but it was for the authority to decide whether it wished to follow that advice or not.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tynemouth Council is very satisfied with the position? Will my right hon. Friend also point out to the hon. Lady opposite that it is a very good thing to have a moderate council in operation which tries to balance all its arrangements satisfactorily to all sections of the community?

Mr. Brooke: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I was simply trying to do my best, and so, I am sure, was the Tynemouth Council.

Mr. Mitchison: Was not the effect of all this that the council sold back this land at a lower price than the best price it could have obtained if it had not followed the advice given by the Minister?

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. In the interests of hon. Members who take the trouble to put down Questions on the Order Paper, may I ask if it is necessary for the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to ask a supplementary question on every Question?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in what circumstances under his regulations a local government auditor is authorised to approve the disposal by a local authority

of its property to specified individuals at less than its market value.

Mr. H. Brooke: The district auditor does not approve the terms on which local authorities dispose of property.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Minister no answer the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in which an attempt was made to save the right hon. Gentleman by the intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Is it not a fact that in this case the land was, de-zoned and has been sold back at less than the best price that was available, and, therefore, the law has been broken?

Mr. Brooke: I will certainly answer the questions asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Lade. The land has not been resold.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. I am afraid that the Minister did not hear me correctly—

Mr. Speaker: Whether the Minister heard or not is not a point of order.

Thrift Street, North Shields

Mr. MacColl: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what changes in the development of the county borough of Tynemouth have rendered Thrift Street redundant as an area zoned for industrial use.

Mr. H. Brooke: The law enables a local planning authority to make an order revoking planning permission if it appears to them expedient having regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations. In this case, the Tynemouth County Borough Council has made a revocation order for the reasons explained in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle on 17th December.

Mr. MacColl: Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will not approve of any attempt to reserve land for industrial purposes and thus present a bonus price to the present owners? Does it not seem a regrettable precedent that he should advise a local authority to juggle with planning permissions in order to rig the prices of land, thus creating considerable difficulties in good local government practice?

Mr. Brooke: I sympathise with the Tynemouth Borough Council in its desire not to make a profit out of its land by its own actions in re-zoning it. The position in reference to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member is that the Tynemouth Council has made a revocation order and has submitted it for my confirmation. I am not aware of any objections having been raised in any quarter.

Talking Books for the Blind

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, under the Local Government Act, 1933, he is prepared to approve expenditure by local authorities on the provision of talking books for the blind in the same way that they provide specialist books for students and discussion groups.

Mr. Bevins: Sanction under this Act is not avaliable for continuing expenditure.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that my Question refers not to talking book recordings but to talking books, which are synonymous with talking book machines; the book cannot talk without the machine. This comes under the 1933 Act. It is not a welfare matter; it is a library matter. Will he not, therefore, look at it again to see whether local authorities can be allowed, under the Act, to provide this general service for the blind who cannot read Braille.

Mr. Bevins: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been into this most carefully, and my present advice is that this is a matter for the welfare authority; but I am most anxious to help, and I will very gladly discuss it with him.

Planning Powers (Delegation)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs which county councils have delegated planning powers to minor local authorities.

Mr. Bevins: As the answer is in tabulated form, with permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hayman: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the number of local authorities?

Mr. Bevins: I am afraid I cannot give the number off-hand.

Following is the Table:

County Councils of the following counties in England and Wales have delegated planning powers (in varying degrees) to county district councils

Bedfordshire.
Berkshire.
Breconshire.
Buckinghamshire.
Carmarthenshire.
Cheshire.
Cumberland.
Derbyshire.
Devon.
Dorset.
Durham.
Essex.
Flintshire
Glamorganshire.
Hertfordshire.
Kent.
Lancashire.
Leicestershire.
Lincolnshire (Lindsey).
Middlesex.
Norfolk.
Northamptonshire.
Northumberland.
Pembrokeshire.
Somerset.
Staffordshire.
Suffolk (West).
Surrey.
Sussex (East).
Sussex (West).
Warwickshire.
Westmorland.
Wiltshire.
Worcestershire.
Yorkshire (East Riding).
Yorkshire (West Riding).

County Councils of the following counties have decentralised planning powers to Area Sub-Committees consisting of members of the country council and the county district councils

Caernarvonshire.
Cambridgeshire.
Cardiganshire.
Cornwall.
Denbighshire.
Gloucestershire.
Herefordshire.
Lincolnshire (Holland).
Lincolnshire (Kesteven).
Monmouthshire.
Nottinghamshire.
Oxfordshire.
Southampton.
Suffolk (East).
Yorkshire (North Riding).

Planning Appeals

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to make available to the parties to


appeals, made to him under Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the report of his inspector who held the relevant public local inquiry.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am in the process of consulting the local authority associations on the terms of a circular to local authorities dealing with this and other points arising from the report of the Franks Committee. I hope that I shall be able to issue the circular later this month. Arrangements for making available copies of inspectors' reports in planning appeals will apply in respect of inquiries held at any time after the issue of the circular.

Mr. Irvine: I am obliged for that answer, but is it not the case that in November it was stated in another place that the Government hope to put these charges into operation during the course of January? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will expedite this matter as far as he can?

Mr. Brooke: I am anxious to expedite this matter. At the same time, the local authorities are closely concerned, and the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right for me to consult the local authority associations to get their views before actually issuing a circular.

Slaughterhouses (Siting)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will give directions to planning authorities that in future a slaughterhouse must not be sited in respect of any premises adjoining or forming part of a building used as a dwelling.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend feels that local planning authorities in general can be relied upon to reach sensible decisions about the kind of development which should be sited near dwellings without directions from him.

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman read the Committee proceedings on the Slaughterhouses Bill? He will find that the Parliamentary Secretary always throws the responsibility on to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Will he not reconsider his decision to see that this intolerable state of affairs no longer continues?

Mr. Bevins: My attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The difficulty arises from the fact that, under that Bill, licensing rests with the district councils whereas planning approval rests with the county council, subject, of course, to delegation. In the case of the hon. Member's own county, delegation is not to the district council but to area subcommittees, on which the district councils are represented. My right hon. Friend is reviewing those powers at the present time.

New Towns (Loans)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now grant to new town development corporations the same facilities in respect of interest on loans as are available to local authorities.

Mr. H. Brooke: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind that the corporations should be allowed to raise money in the market. They have no power to do so, and I cannot give it to them.

Mr. Collins: Will the Minister look into this possibility again? Does he agree that in present circumstances, if they have to borrow long term at the present high rates of interest, they are permanently handicapped? Would it not be possible to find a means to allow them to finance their development as efficiently as possible?

Mr. Brooke: I appreciate the difficulty, and it has been looked at. However, I do not think there is any way round it. If they were allowed to borrow short term when interest rates were high, the Exchequer might then be entitled to lend short when the rates are low, and in the end the corporations might be no better off.

River Tyne (Pollution)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister of Welsh Affairs what action he has taken with regard to dealing with the pollution of the River Tyne.

Mr. Bevins: The Northumberland and Tyneside River Board is the body primarily concerned with the condition of


the Tyne, and I am sure that the Board has its responsibilities well in mind. I understand that some of the local authorities are now exploring ways of improving methods of disposing of domestic sewage, but it must be some time before they can formulate any proposals.

Dame Irene Ward: Might I say, being slightly surprised at that Answer, that the Minister definitely stated the other day to me that he had taken certain action with regard to asking for certain analyses? Is that not a fact, or has something happened in the meantime?

Mr. Bevins: The position is that there has been consultation between the officers of my Department and local authorities concerned. Float tests are taking place under expert supervision, and we are hoping that a scheme will emerge.

Dame Irene Ward: Why could not the hon. Gentleman say that?

Mr. Short: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, to which I had not the opportunity to put a supplementary question, in spite of the fact that my constituency lies along the river, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: If I allow every hon. Member to ask a supplementary question, hon. Members who have taken the trouble to put Questions on the Order Paper would not receive answers.

Later—

Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) desired to raise a matter on the Adjournment arising from the unsatisfactory reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to a Question by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I understood your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, to be that a Member who wished to ask a supplementary question on the subject should put down a Question. The position is that a great many Members on this side were thoroughly dissatisfied with the Answer given by the Parliamentary

Secretary to his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and would like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is possible for a Member on this side who is dissatisfied with an Answer given by a Minister to a Question raised on his own side of the House to give notice that, if he is dissatisfied with the Answer, he wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, it is possible. It is open to any Member to give notice that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Why I intervened when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) was speaking was that I understood him to be complaining that although he was a representative of the City of Newcastle he was not allowed to ask a supplementary question. I was pointing out that if I allowed every Member of populous cities to ask supplementary questions on every Question that concerned them it would be unfair to every other Member who had a Question on the Order Paper. Of course, I accept the hon. Member's notice of his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and I hope that he will get a chance of doing so.

Mr. Short: What I was doing—I thought, quite respectfully—was to say why I was dissatisfied and wished to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Your reply, Mr. Speaker, seemed to indicate that a Member who wished to get a reply must put down a Question and that, in spite of the fact that my constituency has a bigger frontage on the River Tyne than that of any other Member of the House. I was precluded from getting an answer unless I put down a Question.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member had put a Question on the Order Paper he would have had an answer.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. As the Question happened to be mine, may I share in the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should apply for an Adjournment and take her good fortune.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY (ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT)

Mr. Usborne: asked the Prime Minister if he will negotiate with the Italian Government to provide machinery for enforcement of the bilateral agreement signed by the Atomic Energy Authority and the Italian Government preventing the use of plutonium and other special nuclear materials for other than peaceful purposes.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, which has been laid before the House, provides for Her Majesty's Government to have the rights of inspection and control necessary to ensure that the assistance given is used solely for the promotion of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. It is also provided that the two Governments shall consult with each other to determine in what respects and to what extent they wish to arrange for these safeguards to be administered by an international agency of which both Governments are members.

Mr. Usborne: As this is one of the early treaties and is likely to be taken as a prototype, would the Home Secretary tell the House how he imagines this sanction will be enforced and what happens if, say, Italy refuses to allow the inspectors entry into their country?

Mr. Butler: It is a case of awaiting the consultations and awaiting the development of the international organisation which has only just been established. Until we have experience of its establishment, we could not give an adequate answer to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — MISSILE BASES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is now responsible for answering Parliamentary Questions on the siting of missile bases in this country.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Questions of general principle or policy will normally be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. Questions of detail relating, for example, to the selection of particular sites will normally be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will only lead to confusion? Is he aware that only last week I originally addressed a Question to the Minister of Defence which was transferred to the Secretary of State for Air who, in a Written Answer, referred me to an answer given given the week before by the Minister of Defence? Are these arrangements meant to keep information from hon. Members or a potential enemy? Can the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to make sure that when we put down Questions we shall get a reasonable kind of answer?

Mr. Butler: Yes. I have followed the maze in which the hon. Member has, unfortunately, become entangled. I have the dates of the various Questions here. I think that after this answer of mine today it should be clear that Questions on policy will be dealt with by the Minister of Defence and Questions of siting particular sites will be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Air. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a clear road.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman not seen a report in a quite reputable newspaper, here and overseas, that General Norstad, the Supreme Commander in the West, is to determine where these missile bases are to be sited? How are we to ask Questions of General Norstad?

Mr. Butler: That raises an issue rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied if Questions are asked that Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to answer them.

Mr. S. Silverman: Was the right hon. Gentleman's original answer intended to cover those bases which are in the occupation of foreign Powers as well as those for which the Minister of Defence is responsible? If so, will he explain to the House under what authority bits of this


country are handed over to foreign occupation in this way for use in this highly dangerous fashion?

Mr. Butler: That raises a wider question, which should be answered in reply to a specific Question on the Paper. The nature of the original Question was wide in character and did not specify bases of one sort of another.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

RENT ACT, 1957 (AMENDMENT) (RELIEF IN CASES OF OLD AGE AND LONG OCCUPATION OR OF GRAVE HARDSHIP)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) to move the Motion which appears in his name, I would call the attention of the House to one of its rules. Hon. Members will find it at the top of page 401 of the latest edition of Erskine May, which states:
The rule may be fully stated as follows:—
No question or bill shall be offered in either House that is substantially the same as one on which its judgment has already been expressed in the current session.
That is a very old rule of the House.
In the course of the last two weeks, the House has twice decided, after Divisions, against Motions for leave to bring in Bills suspending the operation of Section 11 of the Rent Act, 1957, for different periods in relation to tenants generally affected by it.
The Motion before us today proposes a Bill to suspend the operation of that Section by an order of the court with regard to certain categories of tenants, namely, aged tenants and tenants of long occupation and in cases of grave hardship. The hon. Member will no doubt realise that in commending his Motion to us, he should confine himself to these three categories and not seek to traverse the operation of the Section generally, because that would be contrary to the rule which I have stated.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could give the House a little more information on the Ruling and the citation which we have just heard. The last two Bills for which leave was sought both related to the Rent Act and to evictions, but they proposed quite different things. One proposed a postponement of the operation of that Section of the Act generally. The other proposed relief in relation to negotiations between a landlord and a tenant for a new lease. Judging by the title of the Motion today, the third proposed Bill relates again to something totally different; that is to say, a jurisdiction in the courts to give relief in certain particularly hard cases.
May we take it, Mr. Speaker, that there is no objection to any Bill being introduced, or leave sought for any Bill, even though it relates to the same Statute, if its subject matter is not the same as that of any previous Bill for which leave has been sought? Further, may we have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on another point? When leave is sought but is refused, I take it that the position is the same as regards the relevance of the subsequent Motion to what would have happened if leave had been granted.

Mr. Speaker: The first part of the rule states that the House cannot be asked to approve a Motion or a Bill which is substantially the same as one that it has already declined to approve. It is a question of what is "substantial" and what is not. In the case of the last two Bills, I decided that there was sufficient difference between them to justify me in calling the Member and putting the Question. In this case, because the proposed Bill seeks to confine the relief to certain categories of tenants and not to tenants generally, I decide again that it is substantially different in that respect.
What I was pointing out to the hon. Member for Willesden, East, who is about to move his Motion—when he gets a chance—is that in these Ten Minutes Rule Bills the House relies entirely on the Member's description of the contents of his proposed Bill, because there is at this stage no Bill before us. Therefore, if the hon. Member moves his Motion and produces an argument which traverses matters already decided, that would be a description by himself of his Bill as one that was out of order. Consequently, I was warning the hon. Member to keep strictly to his notice and to describe his Bill as one that is limited to the categories I have mentioned.
As regards future Bills, I should not like to give a general ruling on them until I see what the ingenuity of Members produces, but I will certainly look at each one on its merits in accordance with the rule of the House.

Mr. R. T. Paget: On a point of order, Sir. Is there not a further question to be considered here? Has the House passed its judgment on any of

these Bills? The Motion which is moved on these occasions is a Motion for leave to introduce a Bill which is not before the House at all, and on that Motion the House expresses no judgment on the Bill. In my opinion, therefore, this rule is quite inapplicable to applications made under the rule for leave to introduce a Bill, which does not exist and upon which, therefore, the House can express no judgment.

Mr. Speaker: We are not talking about Bills, because no Bill exists. We are talking about a Motion of which an hon. Member is giving notice, and if the House has decided substantially against the same Motion in the same Session, his Motion cannot be put from the Chair. There is nothing about Bills yet. The hon. Member for Willesden, East has not had leave yet.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the appropriate Court to restrain or delay eviction from dwelling-houses decontrolled under section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957, in cases of aged tenants and long occupation or of grave hardship; and for purposes connected therewith.
I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I hope that during the course of my speech I shall not transgress the rule of the House and that all the arguments which I shall put forward will be directed to the purposes of the Bill for the introduction of which I hope to obtain leave. It was an anxious moment while I waited for the points of order to be discussed—almost as anxious as the months which many people are going through at the moment.
It is the right and proper custom of the House that any hon. Member who addresses it on a Motion or on a Bill, or even participates in a debate, should declare any direct personal interest which he may have in the matter under discussion. I want to start by declaring that I have a direct personal interest in the Bill which is named in the Motion.
I hope, however, that speeches which I make and which any hon. Member may make in the House, whether they be directors of 20, 30, or 40 property companies, will all be made in the public interest and not because of any special interest which hon. Members may serve


outside the Chamber. I hope that it will be recognised that in speaking to the Motion I am charged with motives directed purely to serving the common weal. My direct personal interest— [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it? "]— wait for it—is that I have received, under the Rent Restriction Regulations, 1957, a notice to quit. In receiving the notice, and in contemplating it, I am in a position no different from that of the heads of thousands of families, and it is of many of them that I want to speak. I have a further direct interest in my proposed Bill in that I have been given notice to quit after residing in my present flat for eighteen years.
But I am really concerned about the thousands of citizens of Willesden, 90 per cent. of whom find that their accommodation is decontrolled as a result of the passage of the Rent Act. My proposed Bill not only seeks to relieve the anxiety and distress which attends the receipt of notice to quit, but by means of it I hope to give tenants a feeling that justice is still available in the country. There is a growing body of public opinion under an impression, which I share, that the Rent Act, 1957, was designed purely and solely to aid landlords.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the sort of general consideration which I think the hon. Member should avoid. If he can tell the House of the three categories named in his Motion, it will be more to the point and will also enable him to make his speech as short as the practice demands.

Mr. Orbach: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that all these papers which I hold are not notes for my speech. I hope that you will recognise that I am putting forward arguments to emphasise the powers which I want embodied to be in the Bill.
Many hon. Members opposite believe that in October, 1958, old-age pensioners, or elderly people, or people who have held long tenancies, or those who suffer very great hardship, will be in no difficulty, because by then the movement of hundreds of thousands of tenants will have ceased and everything will have settled down. In fact, at Question Time today the Minister of Housing and Local Government gave that as an answer to Questions addressed to him by my hon.
Friends. He has said, and has repeated clearly on innumerable occasions, that there will be plenty of accommodation available, as the result of the passage of the Rent Act, as soon as October, 1958, is reached.
If I refer again to my own case it is only to emphasise the plight of others. It is true that my absence from the House while I am looking for accommodation may mean that I shall have to give up strict attention to my Parliamentary duties, but perhaps that is how the Minister of Housing and Local Government sees the manner in which Parliamentary duties should be carried out. In accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's advice, I, like so many others, have approached property owners and estate agents all over the London area. I sent out 24 letters last week and I have received two replies. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be interested in them.
The first was from a Tory county councillor, who denounces the Rent Act. He sent me the keys of a flat near Redding-ton Road, which I found unsuitable for my pocket, and for other reasons. The second letter was from an insurance company which is a large property holder in the right hon. Gentleman's borough. It reads:
We are in receipt of your letter regarding vacant flats, but we have to advise you that our Waiting List is now so extensive that no useful purpose would be served by adding further names.
What sort of nonsense has the Minister been talking in the House week after week about accommodation being available? Here is the Beacon Insurance Company, one of the largest in the country and one of the largest property-owners in London, replying like that when asked to help me find a modest flat.
The position of many of my constituents is very much worse. Among the 260,000 people in the country who are already recipients of assistance from the National Assistance Board in respect of rent increases under the Rent Act, there must be a great number who have come to me from time to time for help. The rent increases are being met by the whole community and there are others who are almost as badly off, but the tenants of advanced age, or those who have long tenancies, are in a very precarious position today.
Last week leave was refused to introduce a Bill attempting to amend the Rent Act, but reference was made during the debate to an approach made by the local Member of Parliament to landlords. I want to know whether it is right that a Member of Parliament should be used as an arbitrator in issues of this description. I question seriously whether we were sent here to hammer the landlord down on what we think is an exorbitant rent.
In any case, I am in the unfortunate position, as are many other people, of not being able to go to my Member of Parliament, who is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and I cannot learn from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon. North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing). The right hon. Gentleman replies to constituents—the aged and other people who have long-term tenancies— in exactly the same way as he replies to the House. He tells them to negotiate. Surely there have to be two or more parties to negotiation, and when the landlord will not negotiate what, then, does a tenant do? My proposed Bill asks for power to take the matter before the court in the cases I have described, so that justice can really prevail. What the right hon. Gentleman means, however, is that negotiation usually means the acceptance of the landlord's will. I listened to the Minister this afternoon when he said that when negotiations failed we should seek expert advice. I will give him an illustration of a case of which he is well aware, because his attention has been drawn to it.
A Hampstead property was bought for £950 in 1954. The two sitting tenants were paying £190 and £180 respectively. Having bought the property for £950, the landlord took the best of the three flats. As soon as the monstrous Rent Act was passed he offered new leases to the two other tenants. He said: "You can stay for a period of three or seven years provided you are prepared to pay £450 each per annum exclusive of rates, and be responsible for all repairs." [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That is not the end of the story.

Mr. George Thomas: Tory freedom.

Mr. Orbach: One of these tenants who had lived in the house for twenty-five

years, the landlord being on the floor below, will be 96 in June and is at the moment ill with pneumonia. Hon. Members are well aware of the case. The son of this aged lady offered the landlord £375 per annum, which was three-and-three-quarter times the gross rateable value. He has countered with a final offer of £425. What does she do? Negotiate? With whom? Seek advice? From whom?
That is the type of case with which the proposed Bill is designed to deal, and there are others of equally great hardship. I could quote numbers of them from amongst my own constituents. It is essential that the Minister should stand up to his responsibilities. We find ourselves, in Hampstead, completely disfranchised. We have no redress without this type of amending Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am speaking with some spleen because I am on the opposite side of the House, he has only to look at what his own supporters say. Here is what one of his old supporters writes:
When I think that Mr. Henry Brooke talked to the tenants association here when the Rent Act was being prepared and told us all, quite seriously, that we had no need to worry as we should find our landlords were quite ready to negotiate, it makes me sick.
Here is another one:
All perfectly legal, yes, but what a cruel and inhuman way to do it! Think of all the old people. It reminds you of one thing only—the Nazis. That's all I have to say.
I am not arguing here against the landlords, although some of them have been damnable. What I am saying is that the Minister has given a sanction to the damnable landlords, and by allowing this free market he is egging on the bad landlord to get a better price than he would otherwise get if there had been some control put on properties of this type.
Therefore, I put the blame squarely on this House. It is Parliament which has been responsible for the 1957 Act; it is Parliament which must amend it. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides, in spite of whatever interests they may have outside, to remember that the interests of the very old constituents and those who have long tenancies come first. I hope that there will be no one on the opposite side of the House who will oppose this Motion, but if there is I ask him to justify the eviction of a woman of 96 from the house that she is now occupying.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I rise to oppose this Motion. Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) I should disclose an interest. I, too, am a tenant of a decontrolled house, but I am one of the fortunate ones in Greater London who have been able to negotiate a fresh agreement. I believe that many people have been able to do the same and I hope that the hon. Member will be one of them. The truth is that no change, even for the better, can be introduced without inconvenience. Forty years of rent control has gravely aggravated the housing situation. There are bound to be transitional difficulties and we have to face them humanely and realistically. The Bill which the hon. Gentleman seeks leave to introduce would solve none of those difficulties. It would merely postpone them by further extending the security of tenure which has already been extended for fifteen months.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Until a Labour Government get in.

Mr. Rippon: We must face the position frankly. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's concern for all old people who may be evicted under the Act, but I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are doing a very grave disservice to the people they seek to help by their speeches in this House and outside.

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You ruled, Sir, before my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) spoke, that if he made a speech which was identical to that made the week before you would quite properly rule him out of order. That we understood. If this Ruling applies to the Opposition, why does it not apply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), who is using exactly the same words as were used before from those benches?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is not moving a Motion. He is opposing one.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, consequent upon the point raised by my hon. Friend and your Ruling upon that point. I understood your original Ruling to be that the speeches in support of the Motion must be confined to the specific proposals which would be made by the Bill, in order to avoid going over the point which the House has already decided. Does it not follow from that, since all my hon. Friend is asking is leave to introduce a Bill to deal with certain specific hard cases, the hon. Member who wishes to oppose the Motion ought at some point in his argument to show why these specific hard cases should not be dealt with?

Mr. Speaker: The point to which I drew the attention of the House was that it is out of order to offer a Question or a Bill which is substantially the same as one on which the judgment of the House has already been expressed. I was warning the hon. Member for Willesden, East so to describe the Bill which he was seeking to introduce as not to transgress that rule by making it identical with the Motion on which the House had previously expressed its disagreement, on a Division. The hon. Member's speech was in order and contained a good deal of general background, to which I did not object. I am bound to say that I have heard nothing which the hon. Member for Norwich, South had said which transgresses any rule of the House.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of order. I apologise for pressing the point, Sir, but surely it is right to say that in so far as the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is not directed to the Bill which my hon. Friend is seeking to have leave to introduce it is totally irrelevant and out of order on that ground.

Mr. Speaker: I do not take that view of the speech. I thought that it was directed to the Motion before us. The general argument—and I do not express any opinion on whether it was right or wrong—was that it was doing the tenants of these houses a disservice to agitate against the Act. That was the general argument, and whether it be right or wrong is perfectly relevant.

Mr. Rippon: I was trying to explain that I oppose the Motion because any


Bills such as the one the hon. Member for Willesden, East suggests would aggravate and not mitigate the situation, taking the long view. The hon. Member specifically challenged me to say what I would do about the eviction of a person aged 96. Of course, one hopes that in circumstances like that—and I believe that it will be true in the majority of causes—the landlord will take a sympathetic view. But the real solution is not to delay eviction. It is to encourage landlords and owner-occupiers to offer that old person alternative accommodation.
I believe that many people would be willing to come forward and offer that accommodation but for the fact that the Opposition treat anyone who lets accommodation as a villain. The best service which hon. Members opposite could render to tenants would be to withdraw their threats to repeal the Rent Act and to withdraw their lunatic proposals for municipalisation—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because in those circumstances there would certainly be no need for the Motion.

Mr. Herbert Butler: On a point of order. There is nothing in my hon. Friend's proposal dealing with the municipalisation of tenancies. Is it in order, Sir, to discuss the implications of the Labour Party's proposals for dealing with the situation?

Mr. Speaker: It is very hard to say what is in order and what is not. The hon. Member for Norwich, South argues that it is better to proceed with the Act unamended than to amend it now. Hon. Members may not agree, but they ought to listen, as I have to listen, to conflicting views from both sides of the House.

Mr. Rippon: My whole argument is directed to the point that the Opposition are encouraging the evictions which they now seek to delay—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—and are causing needless anxiety and worry to many tenants who are being stampeded into entering into the sort of detrimental agreement to which the hon. Member for Willesden, East referred. Obviously, if hon. Members say that there is a terrible shortage of accommodation and that there will be wholesale evictions, bad landlords will seek to exploit the situation.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of order. If the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is trying to show that what is being done on this side of the House, or being proposed by my hon. Friend, leads to evictions rather than otherwise, surely, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, he has to do it within the four corners of the proposal that he has brought forward. What we are aggrieved about is that he is wandering over policy at large and not confining his speech to the four corners of the proposal.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. Friend has to confine himself to the four corners of the Motion and has no opportunity to deal with matters outside it, that should apply to the hon. Member who is opposing the Motion. Would it not otherwise mean that arguments from one side of the House could roam over a subject and could not be met by anything said on the other side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: That, unfortunately, is the case, but it is no fault of mine. The hon. Member for Willesden, East was called upon to describe his proposed Bill and had to describe it as one different from that to which the House has refused permission for its introduction. The hon. Member for Norwich, South is using a general argument which may have been valid against the previous Motion and be equally valid against this. If there is a general argument against one topic, it may be equally arguable and relevant against similar topics.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Further to that point of order. If it is relevant to have a general argument against a particular proposal, is it not relevant to have a corresponding general argument in favour of the proposal?

Mr. Speaker: Not at all. The hon. Member for Norwich, South is not seeking to introduce a Bill, nor describing the contents of a document. He is opposing the argument which has been adduced in favour of the Motion. The hon. Member for Willesden, East was under a completely different obligation and different considerations applied to him.

Mr. Rippon: I will now turn from the general to the particular.

Mr. Orbach: On a point of order. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, during the course of the argument which I advanced in favour of my Motion, you rose and asked me to keep to the particular Bill which I was seeking leave to introduce. Having listened carefully, I have not heard a single statement from the hon. Member opposite which has had anything to do with the Bill which I propose to introduce, or which was a valid argument.

Mr. Speaker: That may be. I stopped the hon. Member because he was describing his proposed Bill in terms which made it appear to be very similar to one leave for the introduction of which the House had refused, and I was bound to take action. The strength of the argument against the Motion is not a matter for me, but it is in order and relevant.

Mr. E. Short: On a point of order. We understood you to say, Mr. Speaker that as a Bill had not been printed my hon. Friend would define his proposed Bill by his speech. He did so and made clear to the House that the Bill would be confined to three points. Is it not the fact that from the moment he sat down the Bill was clearly defined and that any subsequent speaker therefore had to apply himself to the confines of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but a general argument against altering the Act at all [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that is what I understood the arguments to mean—may be relevant against all Motions of this sort.

Mr. Rippon: I will now move from the general argument, which hon. Members opposite seem to have understood and followed, to the particular point arising in relation to orders for possession and the position of old people.
I believe that if we act sensibly there will not be a vast number of evictions. In any event, we should bear in mind that there is no question of all these families

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[4.12 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Benson, C.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beswick, Frank
Bowles, F. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Boyd, T. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, F.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Bacon Mist Alice
Blenkinsop, A.
Brockway, A. F.


Baird, J.
Blyton, W. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Balfour, A.
Boardman, H.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Burton, Miss F. E.

finding themselves on the streets on 1st October. The appropriate court cannot refuse to make the possession order, but it has a discretion in the way in which it supervises the carrying out of the order. As the hon. Member for Willesden, East said, the real question is whether other accommodation will be available. We ought to make it clear as far as we can that there is likely to be a surfeit of houses for sale—

Mr. Shurmer: Can old-age pensioners buy houses?

Mr. Rippon: —so that others will become available for letting. Some unfurnished accommodation is already coming into the market in some areas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—and conversions are going on apace, and would go on even faster but for the attacks of the Opposition. In any case, there should be about 200,000 new flats or houses available by 1st October.

Mr. Mellish: What about the waiting lists?

Mr. Rippon: As for old people, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the circulars which the Minister has addressed to local authorities and which —in spite of everything that was said at Question Time—are well within their existing powers to carry out, both in providing new accommodation for old people and in converting and improving old houses. I do not believe that the proposed Bill will do anything but aggravate the position—

Mr. Mellish: Sit down and shut up.

Mr. Rippon: —and I therefore ask the House to reject the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Butler Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.


Champion, A. J.
Irving, Sydney (Dartfortd)
Rankin, John


Chetwynd, G. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Redhead, E. C.


Clunie, J.
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Coldrick, w.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenheacd)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coll ns, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pnos.S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


CraddocK, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Cronin, J. D.
Jones, David (The Hartiepools)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, E. W.


Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Deer, G.
Ledger, R. J.
Skeffington, A. M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Diamond, John
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Marcus
Sparks, J. A.


Dye, S.
Logan, D. G.
Steele, T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Edelman, M.
MacColl, J. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mclnnes, J.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swingler, S. T.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fletcher, Eric
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Foot, D. M.
Mitohison, G. R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Tomney, F.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gibson, C. W.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Usborne, H. C.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moss, R.
Viant, S. P.


Crenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moyle, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Weitzman, D.


Grimond, J,
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
West, D. G.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Healey, Denis
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hobson, C. R, (Keighley)
Paton, John
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Holman, P.
Pearson, A,
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Holmes, Horace
Peart, T. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pentland, N.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Popplewell, E.
Zilliacus, K.


Hubbard, T. F.
Prentice, R. E.



Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Mr. Orbach and Mr. Parkin




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Channon, Sir Henry


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Birch, Rt Hon. Nigel
Cole, Norman


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bashop, F. P.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Arbuthnot, John
Black, C. W.
Cooke, Robert


Armstrong, C. W.
Body, R. F.
Cooper, A. E,


Ashton, H.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Atkins, H. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


BaldocK, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Currie, G. B. H.


Balniel, Lord
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Dance, J. C. G.


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-White, R. C.
Davidson, Viscountess


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Barter, John
Bryan, P.
Deedes, W. F.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Philip (Bilton, E.)
Butter.Rt.Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Dodds-Parker, A. D,


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.







Doughty, C. J. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Partridge, E.


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Peel, W. J.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kaberry, D.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Duncan, Sir James
Kershaw, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Duthie, W. S.
Kimball, M.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castleuponTyne, N.)
Kirk, P. M.
Pott, H. P.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lambert, Hon. G.
Powell, J. Enoch


Erroll, F.J.
Lambton, Viscount
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, J. D.


Fell, A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Ramsden, J. E.


Finlay, Graeme
Leavey, J. A.
Redmayne, M.


Fisher, Nigel
Leburn, W. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'embe &amp; Lonsdale)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Pe[...]ersfield)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Gammans, Lady
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Robertson, Sir David


George, J. c. (Pollok)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Glover, D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, R. S.


Godber, J. B.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sharples, R. C.


Goodhart, Philip
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Shepherd, William


Gower, H. R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
McAdden, S. J.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Speir, R. M.


Green, A.
McKibbin, Alan
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McLaughlin, Mrs. p.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Gurden, Harold
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Storey, s.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macelesf'd)
Maddan, Martin
Teeling, W.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Temple, John M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Marples, Rt, Hon. A. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R. (Croydon, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, Douglas
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mathew, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mawby, R. L.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hill, John (s. Norfolk)
Milllgan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Moore, Sir Thomas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vane, W. M. F.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hope, Lord John
Neave, Airey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hornby, R. P.
Nicholls, Harmar
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wall, Major Patrlok


Howard, John (Test)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral, J.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Webbe, Sir H.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hurd, A. R.
Oakshott, H. D.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hyde, Montgomery
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Woollam, John Victor


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, R. G.



Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Sir Robert Cary and Mr. Rippon.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask for your guidance in referring in future to the introduction of a Motion under Standing Order No. 12 which refers to Motions for leave to bring in Bills.
In all history the rule to which you refer regarding the introduction of a Motion on which the judgment of the House has already been expressed in the current Session has never been applied to Standing Order No. 12, even though

at one period it was used extensively by Irish Members for the purposes of obstruction. I submit that it is inapplicable and I ask for a Ruling to that effect.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the submission of the hon. and learned Member is right, but, coming from him, I shall give it close attention and come to a conclusion upon it. My idea is that this old rule applies to all Motions. It is at least 350 years old. If the hon.


and learned Member will put his point to me I will consider it, but I do not think that now is the time to argue it.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: It was rather difficult to catch, at this end of the Chamber, what you said, Mr. Speaker, but some hon. Members thought you said that you would give careful consideration to the submission of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), coming, as it did, from him. Is it suggested that because this submission came from my hon. and learned Friend it will receive consideration above that which it might receive had it come from any other hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: Not at all. To me, all hon. Members are alike in importance, but some hon. Members show greater industry than others in delving into our past records.

Mr. Paget: I am grateful for what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I will take the opportunity to bring this matter to your notice and to explain it.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL

Order for second Reading read.

4.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill makes certain amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, which is a consolidating Measure. It incorporates the provisions of the original Redistribution Act of 1944, as amended by a later Act of 1947, and takes account of the changes made by the Representation of the People Act, 1948, in the number of constituencies.
As hon. Members know, the essential feature of the present law is that the review of Parliamentary constituencies is entrusted to four independent Boundary Commissions, one for each part of the United Kingdom, under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker. The Commissions are required to make periodical reports containing their recommendations for redistribution of seats in the part of the country with which they deal in accordance with the redistribution rules laid down in the Act. These recommendations, if approved by affirmative Resolution of both Houses, come into effect for the next following General Election.
There is probably general agreement on these basic principles and this Bill does not affect them, so it is limited in scope. But, as was indicated in the debates on the last general review of constituencies in December, 1954, and January, 1955, experience of the working of the present law has shown that some changes are needed. It is with these changes that the Bill is concerned. The Government, naturally, thought it right in a matter of this constitutional importance to discuss the proposals we had in mind with the leaders of the other parties. I think I may safely say that the discussions were friendly and helpful and that substantial agreement was reached on the proposals now contained in the Bill.
The main proposals are: first, to make certain changes in the constitution of the Boundary Commissions; secondly, to


lengthen the interval between general reviews of constituencies; thirdly, to introduce more flexibility into the redistribution rules; and, lastly, to make some further provision about the publishing of notices and the holding of local inquiries. I wish to say a few words about each of these points in turn.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes two changes in the constitution of the Commissions. Their present constitution is set out in Part I of the First Schedule to the 1949 Act. Mr. Speaker, you are chairman of each of the Commissions and the other members are the Registrar-General for the country concerned, the Director-General of Ordnance Survey—in Northern Ireland that would be the Commissioner of Valuation—who are members ex officio and two members appointed by the appropriate Ministers. One of the members of each Commission is nominated by you, Mr. Speaker, to be deputy-chairman.
The two changes made by Clause 1 are: first, the deputy-chairman of each Commission will, in future, be a judge. This follows the present practice in Scotland. In the case of the Commission for England and Wales the appointments will be made by the Lord Chancellor; in the case of the Commission for Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and in the case of Northern Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
The second change is that the Registrars-General, the Director of Ordnance Survey and the Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland will become assessors and will cease to be members of the respective Commissions. These officials are at present members of the Commissions because of their expert knowledge. There was some feeling in the House on the occasion of the last general review—a feeling which also found expression in our discussions with the Opposition—that, while the Commissions should continue to have the benefit of the expert knowledge of these officials, it would be better if the latter had no responsibility for the framing of the Commissions' recommendations. The proposal in the Bill meets this point.
The result is that each Commission will consist of Mr. Speaker as chairman, a High Court judge as deputy-chairman and two

members appointed by the appropriate Ministers. In the case of the Commissions for England and Wales that will be one member appointed by the Home Secretary and one member appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government; in the case of Scotland, two members appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland; and in the case of Northern Ireland, two members appointed by the Home Secretary.
The Government intend—and this is important—that the Ministerial appointments shall in each case be made in agreement with the other political parties, subject to the proviso that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will continue to appoint persons with a knowledge of local government. I am sure that this reservation will give rise to no difficulty.
So much for Clause 1. I come now to Clause 2, which extends the intervals between general reviews of constituencies. The present intervals are three years minimum and seven years maximum. In the debates on the last general review, to which I have already referred, there appeared to be general agreement in all parts of the House that these intervals were too short, having regard to the upsets which redistribution is bound to cause in many cases, and that, as suggested by the Boundary Commission for England in paragraph 19 of its First Periodical Report, the interval between general reviews should be lengthened. While we may hear some argument in the course of the discussion today, there is no doubt that there is a considerable body of evidence, both in the House and in the Report of the Boundary Commission, in paragraph 19, that the interval between these general reviews should be lengthened.
The intervals proposed are ten years minimum and fifteen years maximum. Initially, these intervals will run from the date of the last reports of the Commissions. These were presented in November, 1954 and the effect of the Bill is as follows: the next reports cannot be presented before November, 1964 and need not be presented before November, 1969. The Commissions need at least a year, more likely eighteen months, for the general review leading up to a report, so that the next general review would probably start not earlier than some time in 1963 and


not later than some time in 1968. I am making this statement so that hon. Members may see the effect of the Bill.
We think that ten years is a suitable minimum interval. It should be long enough to ensure a reasonable period of stability and it will mean that at least one more General Election will take place before the next general review. On the other hand, it should be short enough to ensure that gross differences or discrepancies betwen electorates of different constituencies are not allowed to continue uncorrected for too long.
We considered whether the lengthening of intervals between general reviews made it necessary for some special provision to deal with constituencies where, between the general reviews, the electorate became wholly disproportionate and out of step compared with the general average, but, on examination, we do not think that any such provision is needed. The Commissions already have power, under Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act, to make recommendations affecting individual constituencies between general reviews.
This is, in fact, a general power—I have checked on that point—but it is one, I remind the House, which hitherto has been used only to adjust constituency boundaries to local government boundaries, and we think rightly so. A major alteration can hardly be made to one constituency in isolation. It is almost bound to affect adjoining constituencies over a gradually widening radius, according to the ripples which are created, and there would be a real risk of a series of alterations which might go far to stultify the whole purpose of extending the intervals between general reviews.
As I mentioned earlier, the minimum interval of ten years should be short enough to prevent major discrepancies from remaining too long uncorrected. The fact remains, however, that it is open to a Commission, if it should think fit, to recommend major alterations of individual constituencies between general reviews.
So much for the second main proposal. The third main proposal of the Bill—more flexibility in the application of the redistribution rules—is contained in Clause 2 (2). Section 2 (1) of the 1949 Act has the effect of requiring

Commissions to aim at giving full effect to the redistribution rules in the Second Schedule to the Act on the occasion of each general review. This means, among other things, that they are obliged, in many cases, to recommend changes which would produce greater mathematical equality between constituencies even though the electorates of the existing constituencies concerned are not abnormal.
This gave rise, not unnaturally, to a good deal of upset and resentment in a number of constituencies on the occasion of the last review, and the Boundary Commission for England reported that some relaxation of the rules might well be considered. The Bill accordingly relieves the Commissions of the obligation to give full effect in all instances of the redistribution rules. It requires them to take account of the inconvenience and breaking of local ties which follow upon constituency changes. To sum it up, the effect of the Bill is to bring in a presumption against making changes unless there is a very strong case for them.
The Commissioners, however, will still be required to comply with Rule 4 of the redistribution rules. Perhaps hon. Members will recall that this provides that as far as practicable constituency boundaries should be kept in line with local government boundaries. I think the House will agree that it is right that, in general, this rule should continue to be complied with—that is, Rule 4. There is certain latitude about other rules, but there must be compliance with Rule 4.
Before leaving the redistribution rules, perhaps I should refer to a matter which received a good deal of attention in the debates on the last general review, namely, the question of the relative electorates of county and borough constituencies. It was at that time a matter of some controversy, but I trust that we shall have none this afternoon. I do not wish to say anything which might revive this controversy, but I do not want to give the impression, by passing the point over and saying nothing about it, that the Government did not address their mind to it in connection with the present proposals.
On the occasion of the last review, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whom I see sitting not in his usual place but in another place in the


Chamber, pointed out that he had contested both rural and urban constituencies and knew the extra strain placed on a candidate in a county division. I am very grateful to him, because I have always represented a county division. He said:
I do not think there is any very serious difference of opinion as to the fact that there should be some weighting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2189.]
The Government share the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. He also said that the amount of that weighting was a matter for legitimate controversy, and he used these words:
It may well be a good thing, before any alteration is made in the law, to give consideration to the point as to what is an appropriate differentiation between rural and urban seats to see if we can arrive at some generally agreed proportion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1955; Vol. 536. c. 356.]
The Government have considered this matter, and we should like to listen to anything said on it in the course of our discussion this afternoon or during the passage of the Bill. Our present conclusion is that it is not the sort of matter that we can easily write into the redistribution rules. We feel that we must leave this to the good sense of the Boundary Commissions.
I think that I have explained some of the major changes, the attitude to the rules—the question to which I have just referred—and the compliance with Rule 4. I now come to Clause 3, which provides for a separate electoral quota for each part of the United Kingdom.
The electoral quota means, at present, the average electorate of all constituencies in Great Britain, but the Great Britain average is not appropriate to the differing circumstances of England, Scotland and Wales, nor is it consistent with the fixed allocation of seats to Scotland and Wales—and consequently of that to England—contained in Rule 1 of the redistribution rules in the Second Schedule to the Act of 1949.
Clause 4 of the Bill refers to the publication of notices and the holding of local inquiries. Subsection (1) provides that where a Commission revises a proposed recommendation after publishing its notice of it, it must publish a notice of the revised recommendation. I think that that would be accepted by most hon. Members. The Clause also obliges a

Commission to hold a local inquiry if, on notice of a recommendation being published, any objection to that recommendation is made by a local authority, or at least 100 electors in the constituency affected. This applies both to an original recommendation and, in general, to a revised recommendation.
The proviso to Clause 4 (2) has the effect, however, that where a Commission has already held an inquiry into its original recommendation it need not hold a further inquiry into a revised recommendation if, after considering all the circumstances, it is of the opinion that a further local inquiry would not be justified. These provisions in page 3 of the Bill relate to local hearings in the constituencies affected.
We have also considered, in our discussions with the leaders of the other parties, a suggestion made by the 1942 Committee on Electoral Machinery, whose recommendations paved the way for much of the present redistribution law. This suggestion was that, in addition to the local hearings, each Commission should sit, under its deputy-chairman,
to hear any representations from the chief or national officers of the principal party organisations with respect to the provisional proposals.
I have written to Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Commissions, expressing, on behalf of the Conservative Party, the hope that the Commissions will be prepared to implement this suggestion. I understand from Mr. Speaker, though it should be confirmed by the leaders of the other two parties or their representatives, that the other two parties sitting here have also already written to Mr. Speaker in the same sense. I am glad about that, because we shall all be favourable to that practice being put into effect.
I come to Clause 5. Lest any hon. Member from either England or Wales should think that there is anything sinister about the Clause, I should explain that it is quite harmless. It merely removes an ambiguity in the present Act by making it clear that the County Borough of Newport is to be treated as it has been in practice, as part of Wales for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil: That is perfectly natural.

Mr. Butler: I am glad that the hon. Member is in agreement with us.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: For the first time.

Mr. Butler: Those are the contents of the Bill of which I move the Second Reading in a speech which, I hope, has not lasted more than ten minutes, thus adhering to the Ten Minutes' Rule. The Bill represents a very carefully considered attempt to improve the present redistribution law in the light of experience of its working. I hope that it can be regarded as a largely agreed Measure and I accordingly commend it to the House.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: As the Lord Privy Seal knows, I took no part in the discussions to which he has referred, but I have informed myself about their purport. The suggestions I am going to make, amounting hardly to criticisms at this stage, do not cut across any agreement reached between the parties.
I can start by welcoming the extension of the interval from ten to fifteen years. Bearing in mind the rest of the Bill, we must all see that we are legislating for a review some way ahead after a longer interval than that to which we have hitherto been accustomed. Subject to that comment, this is a very welcome change, as I think the debates last time showed. Again, I welcome the proposal that a judge of the High Court should be the deputy-chairman and that the officials who were acting as members of a Commission last time should next time act as assessors.
I must make one observation in relation to the chairman of the Commissions, who will remain Mr. Speaker. I could not do better than to quote a few words from the debate on the last occasion in a speech by Mr. Assheton, as he then was, a distinguished and respected member of the Conservative Party. He said:
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Mr. Speaker is the nominal chairman of this Commission. I find that a rather embarrassing thing. If, in future, legislation is introduced to deal with this problem of the work of the Boundary Commission, I suggest for consideration that it might be less awkward if the nominal chairman is someone other than Mr. Speaker, because we all know that his heavy duties make it impossible for him to give

detailed consideration to these questions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2119.]
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I say no more than that I agree with those observations.
I turn now to one other matter which I can welcome, the arrangement about local inquiries, contained in Clause 4. Hon. Members will remember that the procedure of the Commissions of the last occasion led to a great many complaints, whether well- or ill-founded, and it is desirable that there should be some change in the direction indicated. The establishment for England of an English quota in place of the attempts to fit—if I may so call it—a Great Britain quota on to England I can welcome, but only on terms. It involves some other matters. I must go back to what happened in 1953. The Great Britain quota on that occasion, the electoral quota, was 55,670, having regard, in its application to England, to what had been done with Scotland and Wales.
That quota, if applied, would have meant 626 seats in the House, and 519 of them would have gone to England. The Commissioners took the view that an addition of 13 to the existing number of seats—506—was substantially more than the then figure. It was for that reason. as I understand the Report, that they proceeded on something rather different. They took the actual English average electorate, which was 57,122. As they interpreted and applied the rules at the time they did what, in terms, is proposed by this Bill, for I think they took an English quota and added, not 13, but five seats to the 506. The English electoral quota on that basis at that time would have been 56,564.
I take that figure and compare it with the Scots and the Welsh corresponding figures. The corresponding Scots figure is 48,011 and the corresponding Welsh figure is 50,363. The discrepancy is, obviously, very large.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. and learned Member will take into account the very difficult geographical conditions, particularly in the north of Scotland and parts of North Wales?

Mr. Mitchison: Most certainly. I had that well in mind and was coming to it, but I want the House to appreciate that the Commission, in 1953, was asked to


do a really impossible task if it was to apply all these rules. In fact, by the terms of the rules it is given a very wide discretion as to how it applies them—not, I think, quite as wide as has sometimes been suggested, but, still, very wide.
One of these rules, which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has in mind, comes last in importance and has only limited application. It says:
A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of…
certain preceding rules—
if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable.
I agree with the hon. Member that that rule, coming as the last and as an exceptional rule, was intended to apply to such areas as the crofting counties in Scotland and corresponding parts of Wales. Its application, if any, to England is very limited. It certainly does not mean that because Scotland contains certain areas with "special geographical considerations" voters in the industrial belt of Scotland should thereby have any preference.
Nor does it mean, as I understand it, that there is any enabling or enjoining of the Boundary Commissioners to give a general preference to the country as against the town. It is not a special geographical consideration that between the towns there should be some country; it is a much more limited matter. Therefore, I say that the discrepancy between Scotland and Wales, on the one hand, and England, on the other, is too large.
That was the consideration which put the Boundary Commissioners in difficulty in 1953, and led to a great deal of argument. I am not for a moment suggesting that there should be fewer Scots Members or fewer Welsh Members. I suggest that England is under-represented. I have said already that we are legislating for a period considerably ahead. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the first start, even at the earliest date, is likely to be 1963, and it may be as late as 1968. Since the enumeration date of the last Boundary Commission not only has there been the discrepancy which existed then, but it has continued to increase.
If hon. Members look at the population— not the electorate—figures, they

will find that between 1953 and 1956 the population of England, excluding Wales, increased more than twice as fast as the population of Scotland. I am, of course, not referring to the absolute increase, but to the increase in proportion to the respective populations.
One must recognise that there is no particular reason why that tendency should cease to operate. Therefore, I suggest that the existing discrepancy, which is likely to be increased, ought to be met by additional seats for England, subject, of course, to the point made about "special geographical considerations"; it cannot be an exact proportion for that reason.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Do not the same discrepancies exist within England as between rural and urban areas, and not merely as between England and Scotland and England and Wales?

Mr. Mitchison: I have already said that I think "special geographical considerations" may possibly have a very limited application in England, but I do not think that the phrase is intended to refer to the general distinction between town and country. I find it rather hard to be specific about it, but I am quite certain that the main objective of the rule, and the main effect of the rule, is, and ought to be, in relation to the remoter areas rather than to anything we have in England. I have particularly in mind the Scottish crofting counties.

Mr. John Mackie: Not only the crofting counties.

Mr. Mitchison: We all agree that this is a matter of special geographical distinctions and I do not propose to take up time arguing where the limits are.
I have already pointed out that the Commissioners were unable to make a large alteration and that no logical application of the Great Britain quota could be made. There is a case for a larger allowance of Parliamentary seats to England. My conclusion is that if we are to accept—as, I think, we should—the English quota, it ought to be accompanied by an increase in the number of English seats. Without committing ourselves in any way—this is a matter which might be gone into in Committee—it seems to me that about 15 or 20 extra seats is indicated for England. If hon.
Members have anxieties about the size and accommodation of the House, I would remind them that from 1801 to 1918—more than a century—there were between 33 and 45 more Members in the House than there are now. We are a smaller Parliament.
The next question—if I. can carry the House, now or later, on that point—is: where are we to aim to put these additional English Members? Here we come to the town and country difference. It was a difference of exactly this nature that led to the House adding 17 additional seats for the boroughs in 1948. The difference is still there. Indeed, the effect of the Boundary Commission, in 1954, was to increase it, and the present figure, as near as makes no matter, is an average difference of 4.000.
When one looks at the Boundary Commissioner's Report, we find, after noticing that there is nothing in the rules that refers to this matter at all, a rather peculiar passage in paragraph 14 of the recommendations. 'The Commissioners refer to the addition of 17 members that I have just mentioned, and they then, as I see it, come to this conclusion:
Some of our recommendations for these areas"—
that is, the additional ones—
are, however, designed to create a better balance between the electorates of borough and county constituencies than now exists…
and they leave it at that, after repeating the view that, in general, urban constituencies could more conveniently support large electorates than could rural ones. To a limited extent, there is a little in that, but I suggest that, nowadays, there is very little indeed in it in practice.
Present-day communications are very different from what they were a long time ago. I sit for a county constituency and, although it does involve a little more difficulty in getting about, there really is not very much in it. I suggest that what we are now considering is not so much the difference between the convenience of Members or anything like that, but the right that ought to exist, in the first instance, for a vote in any part of the country to have, as nearly as possible, the same effect. That is the fundamental claim upon which we are entitled to say

that an average discrepancy of 4,000 ought to be avoided, if possible.
The Boundary Commissioners' reasons for this are not at all clear. Moreover, if they wanted to make a difference of this sort, how did they arrive at any particular quantitative assesment of it? As we have seen, they did increase it, but, if it concerned matters of convenience, why did they not take into consideration some sort of evidence about it? As I see it, it was a complete hit-or-miss conclusion, drawn from their own views, without reference to the rules, which really referred to something quite different—to special geographical considerations—and without any reference as to what, if there was to be such a difference, that difference ought to amount to. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that any attempt to give one vote the same value everywhere, with the additional seats that I have sought to claim for England, ought to go, in the main, to the boroughs and urban populations. I find it very difficult to see any logical objection to that.
I turn now to the rules, and I shall deal with them quite shortly. Of the first three, one is about a single Member; another about the City of London; and the third is about the number of constituencies, where, as hon. Members are well aware, Scotland and Wales get a minimum, and Great Britain gets
Not substantially greater or less than 613"—
which, in effect, under the rules as they now are, applies to England.
As I see it, those three rules at present have a rather over-riding effect. As Lord Evershed said, when considering this matter in the Court of Appeal:
Some primacy is obviously given to the first three rules.
Next comes Rule 4, which deals with respect for local government boundaries. If one looks at the way these rules are worded, it seems to me that the overriding rules come first, and then there are discretionary qualifications; that they follow in the order of the importance intended to be attached to them. After local government boundaries, comes the electoral quota, and next, and last, the special geographical considerations.
I want to say a word or two about the local government boundaries. We welcome the introduction of the factors mentioned in Clause 2 (2). We recognise, too,


that in saying that it shall not be the duty of the Boundary Commission to aim at giving full effect, in all circumstances, to the rules, the new Bill is really recognising a difficulty that existed previously. But we see no particular reason why Rule 4 should have this preference. Indeed, we see reasons against it.
What happened was that though the rules treat county and county borough boundaries in exactly the same way, the Boundary Commissioners did not hesitate, where circumstances required it, to cut across county boundaries. For instance, they added an adjoining rural area to a borough in quite a number of cases, and they left the addition standing in some others, and though, no doubt, they had regard to the existence of the borough, they certainly did not regard it as more than one of the factors to be taken into account.
The Commissioners' attitude to county boundaries was quite different. When they began to consider the matter, their first provisional allocation was on the basis of counties, and when they finally came to their conclusions they never broached, or, as it were, crossed a county boundary, though, in one or two cues, they left existing constituencies of that kind in operation. For instance, the Rutland and Stamford constituency includes the whole county and something else. They left it at that. In fact, so long as Rutland remains one cannot do much else.
But, for the purpose of any changes they proposed, they did regard county boundaries as a very sacred cow indeed; but not so county borough boundaries. I suggest that that should not be so, I suggest, also, that, nowadays, at any rate, local government boundaries ought not to be given this precedence over other factors, and particularly over the need for a reasonable equality between adjoining constituencies, and also the general convenience and sentiment of local people which do not always tally with local government boundaries.
That is particularly so in two cases. New towns are coming into being in this country. I hope that there will be more of them. They are involving very large changes of population, taking place rather rapidly, but their existence is not yet fully reflected in local government boundaries.
There is an even more striking case. The Local Government Bill is at present on its way through the House. That Bill enables sweeping changes to be made in county, as well as in county borough, boundaries. Indeed, in all local government boundaries, and particularly in what are usually called the conurbations, the Bill contemplates some strange new things. It contemplates collections of county boroughs, where there was none before, and quite a remarkable animal, hitherto unknown to the Statute Book, called the continuous county.
If these curious morphological phenomena are to be treated with the respect that perhaps old traditions gave to older boundaries, we shall get into a hopeless tangle, and I think that nowadays local government boundaries, in general, ought not to be given any special preference as a factor. They are one of the things to be taken into account, but no more.
I now turn to two other points. One is the question of interim reviews under Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act. The difficulty here is that we are to have the Boundary Commission, with a High Court judge as the deputy-chairman, with Mr. Speaker as what Mr. Assheton called the nominal chairman—and Mr. Speaker, in the course of the last debate, expressed his reluctance to interfere in individual cases of boundary adjustments—and two persons appointed by the Ministers concerned.
Who is to keep the matters under review, and who is to take the initiative in all this? Can the High Court judge be asked to do it, and on what principle is he to do it? I suggest that we must look again to the possibilities of not obliging the Commission to make these interim reviews, but of calling its attention to cases which it should consider with a view to making an interim review in circumstances such as these.
I entirely appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said, that what looks like a small change, or a small pebble thrown into the pond, may have far-reaching ripples, but that is no reason, in a country where there are already considerable movements of population going on at a speed unknown in the past, just to leave things as they are for a period of ten to fifteen years because it is nobody's job to call attention to major discrepancies.
Lastly, time. One of the troubles about the Boundary Commission's Report last time was that it came out at a very short interval before the 1955 General Election. There should be a provision, and, I suggest, a very simple one, for providing a reasonable interval for readjustment after proposals of this sort have been given effect to before an Election. All that is needed is that when the proposal would otherwise come into effect at once, there shall be a six months' delay for the purpose.
I want to say one other thing. We are conferring on a Commission, which consists of people of a judicial or official character, a remarkable discretion as to the rearrangement of Parliament. The rules at present are obscure and confused, and that matter ought to be cleared up on the lines that I have indicated. One would welcome any further possibility of making them clearer, and that is particularly the case when one remembers not only the character of the Commission itself, but what emerged from the debates last time—the lack of effective Ministerial or Parliamentary control once the Report of the Boundary Commissioners has been made.
We had the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman putting before us the various Orders suggested by the Boundary Commission without any modification of any sort, and saying, in effect, and quite clearly, "It is no part of my duty or of my responsibilities to do anything but put these reports forward." I see a very real objection to any Home Secretary taking too much responsibility in these matters, for the Boundary Commission is impartial and he inevitably lays himself open to a charge of partiality. I think that the conclusion is not to try to make him do it when we think he ought not to, but to see that the rules themselves give a clearer and sounder guidance for this judicial and official committee than these rules, as they now stand, can possibly give.
If we are to handle this matter, we want to get it right now, looking ahead, as best we can, for a considerable period of years, but we must not leave it until the time comes when the Boundary Commissioners make their report, and we all get up here and protest as a result of the protests which have been made in the

country among the electors themselves. That ought not to happen. I believe that it happened last time, not from any partiality by the Boundary Commissioners, but from the sheer confusion that arose out of these rules.

5.16 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I wish to give this Bill my warmest support. It was my duty, as Under-Secretary at the Home Office, to defend a good many of the orders which were proposed by the Commission in 1954 under the existing law.
I can remember very well, as most hon. Members here will, the three days of extremely acrimonious debate which took place, and I think that those debates were quite unprofitable. No change was made in any of the orders, and it was not even those debates that led to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary bringing forward this Bill. The proposals in this Bill were mostly made in the Reports of the Commission, and it did not require those debates to make the House see that they were right.
But the debates were worse than a mere waste of Parliamentary time. Allegations of political bias were made quite commonly, and such allegations can only invite outside this House a certain cynicism and certain suggestions about how these things had been done, which is derogatory to our democratic institutions. If public opinion were ever subverted to the view that the party in power, whichever it may be, was tampering with our political machinery, it would be the beginning of the end of democratic freedom here. It is not only important that our political machinery itself should be fair, but it is even more important that it should be seen and be thought to be working fairly. There is nothing in this Bill, I am sure, which is inherently unfair, and I do not think that any hon. Member in the course of this debate will suggest that any of the proposals are, in that sense, bad.
The question we ought to consider on Second Reading is whether, when the machinery of this Bill is working, it will appear to be fair to people outside in the country. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to Clause 3, which embodies a principle which was strongly objected to as a


principle by the Opposition in 1954, and, particularly, by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who had some pretty hard words to say about it. Of course, as the hon. and learned Member pointed out, the principal Act, as now framed, contains conflicting instructions on this matter.
The result of fixing a minimum number of Members for Scotland and Wales, respectively, meant that Scottish and Welsh constituencies would generally contain fewer voters than English constituencies.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not think that it was an objection of principle. The objection was to the way in which the Boundary Commissioners had met the difficulty before them. They had met it in the sense of not making as many seats as my hon. Friends thought they ought to have made. They could have met it the other way.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman says; I do not think there is any real difference between us. Objection was taken to the way in which the Commission interpreted the instructions—whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant for present purposes. In effect, the result of the Act as a whole was undoubtedly to give Scotland and Wales a certain preference, shall we say, in regard to their number of Members of Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, suggested that that was done solely on geographical considerations. My own impression has always been that other considerations applied. I have always believed that there was a feeling that these were, so to speak, minorities within the country and that they should get some sort of preference on that account. I do not know whether that was, in fact, so.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman point to any place in the Report at all which suggests that that element was taken into consideration? I certainly have no recollection of it at the moment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If I may say so, it would not be a matter for the Commission in its Report; that was a matter for Parliament at the time of the passing of the Act. What I am saying is that in giving a minimum number of seats to

those countries Parliament put them in a preferential position. I believe that there were reasons other than geographical for giving them that minimum. However, I am but speculating, and I do not think that anyone in the House can do otherwise.
At all events, it is quite certain that it was the intention of Parliament, expressed in the Act, to give Scotland and Wales a preference over England. Of course, this put the English Commissioners in a quandary. In any proposals for redistribution, if Rule 5 of the Second Schedule were to be strictly observed, the result would be that a regular addition of a dozen or more English Members would have to be made at every redistribution until the total number of English constituencies was such that the number of voters, on an average, in each constituency was similar to that in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Mitchison: Allowing for special geographical considerations.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Allowing for geographical considerations. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and, of course, it is stated in the Commission's Report that that number in 1954 would have been, I think, 13; but it does not matter precisely. If the principle were accepted, we should have a further addition next time and a further addition the next time after that. In other words, as the years go by, this preference given to the—shall I say—nonSassenach nations would be gradually whittled away and the total number of Members in the House would receive an increase, on the assumption that the present population remains more or less as it is, of about 70 members. That is something different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested.
In my view the Commission decided rightly in favour of observing the rule that the total number of Members in the House be limited to approximately the number laid down, that is to say, 625 Members. At all events that was the rule it chose.
Any particular recommendation which is made by the Commission, whatever it may be, is almost certain to favour one side of the House rather than the other. It almost always means transferring a community, perhaps a small community,


from one constituency to another. Communities are very seldom impartial. The peculiar feature of this country, generally speaking, is that most constituencies have a decided leaning one way or another, and any change is almost certain to have some political effect and, therefore, to arouse controversy.
The point goes farther than that because, when there is a general redistribution, that redistribution will be governed by the population movements which have taken place in the few preceding years. Those movements are almost certain to be due, to a considerable extent at any rate, to economic changes which take place, economic changes almost always being the principal subject of political controversy in the House. In other words, in any particular general redistribution, the changes which are recommended are likely, on the whole, to affect one party adversely and the other somewhat favourably.
The orders to implement any proposals of that kind will, of course, themselves be likely to attract controversy and be the subject of something of a row in the House. That, in itself, does not matter —I can say that now as I no longer sit on that Bench—but it matters outside, because that kind of row gives precisely the wrong impression to the country and is likely to damage our political machine.
Any Government in the future will be obliged, I think, to accept the recommendations of the Commission in toto. I do not believe that they will be able to pick and choose. If a Government gave way to an amendment in one instance, they would be opening the flood gates to changes in all directions. So long as a Government stand firm on the recommendations of an impartial body, that Government are safe; but if they once start making alterations, it will be impossible for them to resist charges of partiality. The result, of course, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering fairly pointed out, is that the burden of establishing the fairness of any proposed change will be thrown completely upon the Boundary Commissioners. That is why it is immensely important that the Commission must not only be fair but be thought to have acted fairly throughout its deliberations. For that reason, I welcome the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill with regard to the holding of inquiries.
I am quite certain that the holding of inquiries will do nothing but good, even if they are not, perhaps, really necessary to enable the Commission to make up its mind. I go even further. In the Reports which were laid before the House in 1954, the Scottish Commission gave the reasons for the changes which it made in each case. Unfortunately the English Commission did not do so; in some cases it did, but in the majority of cases not. Publicity is of the greatest importance in this connection. It is most desirable that, when proposals for a change are made, the basis for the change should be stated in every single case.
The Commission ought to set out quite clearly what considerations it has borne in mind and how it has come to its conclusions. I do not think that it is possible to provide for this in the Bill itself. To try to lay it down in the Act, I think, would only mean that the Commission would have to set out certain considerations which might leave the matter at large. I hope that something can be done to make certain that the importance of this question is brought to the minds of the Commission and that they should make an attempt to deal with this matter.
Lastly, the Act is silent about the form of the orders which are to be made following the proposals of the Commissioners. On the last occasion each county was taken one by one. A very large number of orders had to be debated. In fact, in every case where there was a major change that change was attacked. I do not blame hon. Members on either side, though I caught the brunt of that attack on a number of occasions.
The same would happen even if this Act were law. For the reason that I have given, changes always upset vested interests and are found to be attacked locally. The Government were in a peculiarly difficult position. They had to defend each change and to give reasons for it. As was stated from the Front Bench at the time, it was obvious that the reasons for the change were those which had affected the minds of the Commission that had recommended the change. If that is the position, either the Government have to hide behind the recommendations of the Commission or have to pretend to a reasoning which


everyone knows is not its own. Either way, the position is unsatisfactory.
I suggest that when the Government, after considering the proposals made by the Commission, agrees with those proposals they should put the whole of the proposals for each country before the House in a single resolution. The scheme of redistribution is invariably a scheme for the country as a whole. Much of the criticism made before was that too much consideration was given to individual counties and not sufficient to the larger aspects. I believe that the debate would be better—it would in no way cramp the ability of hon. Members for particular constituencies to put their cases—and it would certainly save a certain amount of Parliamentary time, if each county discussed the whole of its proposals together, provided that those proposals were following the recommendations of the Commission.
No one knows, assuming this Bill becomes law, what Government will be in power when the time comes to lay fresh orders under the Act. Therefore, if all parties can give an undertaking that that would be their attitude, it would prevent the criticism which otherwise would be made by any Government which did this on their own account, and at the same time lead to a better consideration of the proposals.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I would like to make one or two comments on the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I may have misunderstood what he said, but it is a bold thing to say that the three days' debate that we had in December, 1954, and in the early part of 1955 did nothing to influence this amending Bill. I do not believe that was the view of observers outside the House who followed the debates, nor, indeed do I believe that the Government have ignored many of the points made then, particularly about the period in between reviews. The Boundary Commission's Reports exposed weaknesses in the Act and also gave rise to the view that incorrect interpretations of the Act had been made by the Boundary Commissioners themselves.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I did not mean to suggest that the debate was of no use at all. There was a general debate before

the individual Motions were discussed. That general debate was, of course, useful. It was the long debate, right through two nights I think, on the particular Motions that was of little use.

Mr. Skeffington: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's explanation has cleared that up.
Regarding his second point, I think that the subsequent debates—which were not very fruitful as far as those who were trying to get a change were concerned—would have been better debates if the Government had been more forthcoming. It is an astonishing fact that the Commission, which had originally recommended 252 changes, although it abandoned some of those before they were incorporated in orders, finally recommended 181 or 182 changes. Not in one case did the then Home Secretary or his Under-Secretary the hon. Gentleman for Hendon, South feel that they could make any concession to the House. I cannot believe that even the best Commission in the world could have considered every local factor and brought forward in the case of every constituency the most perfect new boundary. I would have thought that the duty of the Government, even at that late stage, was to take into account very carefully all that was said, and, where it felt that the case was made out, to make adjustments. Certainly Governments have done that in the past.
If I followed what the hon. Member for Hendon, South recommended about future orders not being separately debated, we should reach the position where the House of Commons had become no more than a rubber stamp of authority upon decisions already taken by an outside body. Some discretion must remain with the Government, otherwise there is no point in bringing these proposed new orders for revised constituencies before the House at all. I hope that that view will not be accepted by the Government from whichever side of the House it is formed.
I welcome the Bill because I think it gives greater guidance to the Boundary Commissions than did the old Act. It will remove some of the causes for anxiety and, perhaps, ill-feeling which occurred on the occasion of the last review. I want to make it clear that I do not think the 1949 Act was a bad Act.


Undoubtedly, the period in between reviews was too short. What went wrong last time was the way in which the Boundary Commission interpreted some of its directions. It was too rigid and did certain things which I think were wrong in law. In particular, the use by the Boundary Commission for England of an English quota, which is now to be authorised but which was not then authorised, was wholly wrong. Rule 7 in the Second Schedule of the 1949 Act reads:
the expression electoral quota' means—
(i) in the application of these rules to a constituency in Great Britain, a number obtained by dividing the electorate for Great Britain by the number of constituencies in Great Britain existing on the enumeration date.
Clearly, that basis was not used by the English Boundary Commission. One has only to see the number of seats that they recommended for each of the counties to realise that they were not using the British electoral quota specified by the Act. This was a figure of 55,670 electors. The English Commission used a higher quota of 56,564. I have never been able to understand how the Commission got away with it and why the Government let it do so. It was using a figure that was not authorised, and, in so doing, created difficulties and anomalies which were responsible for a good deal of the ill-feeling which expressed itself in the House.
One has to recall only two instances. London, under the previous review, lost 19 seats. I am not saying that some reduction was not necessary. It was inevitable because of the decline in electors. But London fought an election in 1950 in which there were 19 fewer constituencies, but by the application of an English quota, not authorised in the Act, divided into a county not also authorised, a situation was produced whereby the Commission said that London was to have a further reduction of one constituency, and in order to get that four Metropolitan boundaries and eight Parliamentary constituencies had to be unnecessarily altered. This kind of alteration of boundaries and moving electors cannot be justified by any consideration either in terms of Parliamentary democracy or of the provisions of the Act.
A similar instance occurred in the West Riding, where by adopting the artificial figure of an unauthorised English

quota and dividing it into the local government area of the West Riding the Commission came to the view that 44 seats should be reduced to 42, with the result that the boundaries of no fewer that 20 Parliamentary constituencies had to be altered. This seems to me to be alteration for the sake of alteration and quite unjustified on the merits of the case.
It might not have mattered so much if in general the results of the last review had been to create constituencies more or less equal and to remove many of the anomalies. Some anomalies were removed, but on the whole the situation was that at the end of all those 182 changes, following on the 540 changes only a few years earlier, we were still left in England after the 1953 review with 65 constituencies of more than 65,000 electors, of which 27 had more than 70,000 electors.
At the other end of the scale, there were in England no less than 106 constituencies with only 50,000 electors and 36 of which had fewer than 45,000 electors. So that after all the alterations, with electors being pushed around and the breaking of associations, which very often had little time to fructify because of the previous redistribution, there was still a very large number of large constituencies and an even larger number of smaller constituencies.
Even the new constituencies that the Commission recommended varied in size enormously. Thus as against the three Hull constituencies with more than 67,000 electors each, there were the new, small constituencies of Wimbledon, Spelthorne and Feltham, Wimbledon and Spelthorne each with 44,000 and Feltham with 50,000 electors. One cannot help wondering what object all this was supposed to meet and whether the disturbance was worthwhile.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Concerning the larger constituencies with more than 70,000 electors and some of the smaller constituencies with fewer than 50,000 electors, to which the hon. Member has referred, does he not recall that the Commission was to some extent anticipating what it considered would be the likely trends in the next couple of years? The Feltham constituency is a good example. The population there, I


understand, is increasing greatly and is already well above 50,000. A similar position applied to the adjoining constituency of Spelthorne, which is represented by one of my hon. Friends. The Commission anticipated some of the developments of the next few years.

Mr. Skeffington: The Commission may have attempted to do this, and I have heard that argument before, but it is a rather dangerous doctrine, and it is certainly not one of the rules that this House said that the Commission should observe.

Mr. Charles Pannell: If the Commission anticipated those trends in the constituencies mentioned, it ignored them in dozens of other constituencies.

Mr. Skeffington: Exactly. In the very case of Feltham, quoted by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower)—I am, of course, glad to have my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) in the House—there was a much better way of organising the Middlesex constituencies so that we would not have been left with three large constituencies with over 70,000 electors each in Middlesex. Although we should not have had the constituency as my hon. Friend now represents at Feltham, there would at least have been more equal divisions in Middlesex than those resulting from the artificial use of the quota by the Commission, and no doubt the hon. Member for Feltham would have been here representing one of these better devised constituencies.
The remarkable thing was that although 180 alterations finally were incorporated in Orders and brought before the House, yet in not one of them did the Home Secretary of the day or his Under-Secretary make any alteration whatever in the Orders as they went through. Many of us then felt—and a good deal of public opinion outside the House of Commons felt—that the Government either had completely ignored the views that had been put forward, or were completely indifferent to or contemptuous of the views which had been expressed here. I still consider it deplorable and lamentable that the Government did not make amendments in some of the more obvious

instances of injustice. I hope that the House will certainly not follow the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hendon, South concerning taking the new orders all together without debate.
Clause 3 authorises an English quota and, in fact, legalises what the English Commission did at the time of the last Review. Whatever else may be said in favour of that course, it seems to me that it will increase the inequalities between Members and their electors in England as compared with Wales and Scotland. I have no quarrel whatever with Welsh and Scottish representation in the numbers of electors they represent, but I find it difficult to acquiese in the prospect that the difference now of nearly 8,000 electors between the average Scottish constituency and the average English constituency being even increased by that use of an English quota.
It cannot be in general interest of the House of Commons that English Members of Parliament should have to represent so many more electors than do their colleagues in Scotland and Wales. If we are to regularise an English quota which is obtained by dividing the number of constituencies into the number of English electors, in fairness and to prevent the inequalities becoming worse we must be reconciled to a greater number of English Members in the House of Commons. I accept the proposals of Clause 3 only if we are able to depart from the number of constituencies in the original Act. Unless we are prepared to accept an additional number of Members, the differences of, in one case, 8,000 and, in another case, 6,000 for Wales will grow. That would not be to the interest of the House of Commons. I do not see why English Members of Parliament should be more harder worked than their more fortunate counterparts from Scotland and Wales.
In Clause 2, I welcome the much greater flexibility concerning local government boundaries, communities and associations. What happened in the two previous reviews was that in a number of parts of the country, electors were moved into three or four constituencies within a very few years. In one case, the electors in a small village in Kent were in no fewer than four different constituencies between 1945 and 1953. That is


quite absurd, and I very much hope that we shall not have to face that sort of thing in future.
I hope that the Boundary Commission and the House of Commons will take as their principle for the creation of Parliamentary constituencies the maxim of Professor Mackenzie, of Manchester, in a letter to The Times of 18th May, 1953, in which he was criticising the provisional reports of the Boundary Commissioners. He said:
Academic students of the constitution had assumed, perhaps too quickly …that our present system of constituencies is based on a compromise between the theory of equal electoral districts and the tradition that M.P.s represent local communities and local continuity as well as individual voters.
That is the principle that we have tried to enshrine in the past but from which we departed seriously in the last review. I believe that the greater flexibility of the rules will help us to reach the ideal I have just mentioned.
I wish to say one final word about the composition of the Commissions. It is quite right that the experts should be present as assessors and should not take part in policy decisions. Whether we like it or not, these are political matters and they are probably better settled by political people than by others; I think the issues can generally be settled by agreement on both sides if there is adequate consultation at an early stage.
I am very much in favour of what we learned from the Home Secretary's speech today—that the two members to be appointed by the Home Office and the Minister of Housing and Local Government would be people generally carrying the good wishes and approbation of all parties in the House.
My last observation is this. I wonder whether it is necessary to have a permanent Boundary Commission. As long as we have it, there will always be a tendency to interfere in Parliamentary constituencies, if only to justify the existence of those who form the Commission. I should have thought it still worth while considering, some time in the future, whether or not we should call the Commission together only when there are a number of cases to be dealt with, probably at intervals of ten years.
Provided we have, as Professor Mackenzie indicated, some rough

approximation in the size of the various constituencies, it does not really matter very much if some constituencies are somewhat larger than others, any more than it matters if some men are smaller than others. What we have to avoid is the creation of giants and pygmies. If constituencies fall below 40,000 or grow beyond 70,000 electors they may be too small or too large. It may be that in the conception of the personal relations between a Member and his electors there is a case for not having the luxury of a permanent Commission at all. However, if we must have a Commission all the time I believe that the alterations which are suggested in the Bill will make it a better Commission than it has been in the past.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: I am inclined to disagree with the last sentences spoken by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I do not feel that one can be sure about this, but I am inclined to disagree with his view that the existence of machinery for making changes is in this matter likely to cause changes to be more frequently made. It may work the other way—that because the machinery is known to be there, therefore the less often are initiatives taken to do what the machinery is there to do. Therefore, I would rather tend to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who led from the Opposition benches, and who was particularly anxious to know what is to be done to make sure that the thing is kept under review, and what is to be done to make sure that initiatives of consideration are taken often enough. I think that I quote the hon. and learned Member correctly or, at any rate, fairly. I am inclined to think on the whole that on this matter he is the more right of the two.
I shall be parochial, though I think that something, I will not say interesting, but eventually concerning all Members grows out of the neighbourhood of the parish pump to which I wish to refer. I do not want now to expound the case of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City, for various reasons. I have done it at great length more than once and I think that I have been understood, and no doubt the House would be bored if I did it again on this occasion. But there


are one or two things of which I can fairly remind people.
It was said by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and by almost every other speaker in the debate that these things are bound to be matter of party controversy. I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has said that these things were spoken of in that way. When that Order was discussed, the parties were unanimous, and the local authorities. And I am very glad to have here the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) who kindly spoke in support of me on that occasion; and I am sure that if I go too far in assuming unanimity or continuity now, he will be able to get permission from his superiors, if such there could be to correct me.
The local authorities were unanimous. The strongest motive was, as I take it is one of the motives of the Bill, in favour of what may be called the organic as against the arithmocratic element in redistribution. I may also say that I was rather in the position of the Greek admiral, I think at Salamis, when each captain voted that he himself had been the bravest in the battle and voted in agreement that one particular one had been the second. Similarly, I think that even the keenest constituency politician at the end of that debate would have agreed that the Nottinghamshire case was at least as strong as any other, or at any rate came immediately next in strength to his own.
I agree with the Bill, I am not opposing it; I agree that it is a good thing that the periods for this purpose should be longer; but if we are to have longer periods, it is surely incumbent upon us to make sure that we start, if not from a universally agreed good point, then at least from a point that is agreed to be not a bad point. One always runs the risk of saying something absurd when one assumes that a statement has only to be made plainly to be convincing, but I think that comes as near to that as most statements. In lengthening the period it is most necessary to start from an arrangement which is generally felt to be tolerable. In this case, affecting ten constituencies, it was generally felt by both parties and all the local authorities and every organ of opinion that I could consult, and I have had no evidence that

they have changed since, that this was a bad arrangement.
I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect how many times we have legislated on this subject in the last half-generation. Since 1944, though perhaps I have it wrong, we have had at least five legislative occasions of a more or less first-rate character. There were long debates on Statutory Instruments, and although they were not direct and primary legislation I think that we can call them legislation of an important character. Therefore, including that occasion, it is five since 1944.
And if I am right about Nottinghamshire, there are very great anomalies. There may be other cases but I think that is the extreme case. If there are anomalies too many or too gross or too long—of course if there is one little anomaly for eighteen months nobody much minds—or any combination of these, what will happen? My right hon. Friend today, so far from having got this out of the legislative field, will have so arranged that there will be again legislation, because on that hypothesis there would grow up a demand for legislation: and in the worst circumstances, because we have almost all said today, and I agree wholly with those who have said, that it is important to get this matter above the party mellay. But if it is necessary to arrange for more legislation to remove anomalies, partisan feeling is the feeling that we are almost bound to use for that purpose. Anyone who tried to get that rocket into the stratosphere with any other fuel would have an extremely difficult task. So we may, by trying to get this above the mellay and away from legislation—so that we do not have to go on legislating every twelve or eighteen months—do the wrong thing unless we are extremely careful.
As I understood my right hon. Friend, first the Bill seeks to protract the period, and the second main motive is to give more effect to what I have called the organic factor as against the arithmocratic factor. If that is the purpose intended, where the result is at present being frustrated—by, for example, insufficient attention to local community—then by lengthening the period we may achieve the opposite result to that aimed at, and make it the more likely that there will arise a demand for more legislation.
Should we not be entitled to expect that a partial corrective will, in such circumstances, be applied with the minimum delay under Section 2 (3)? This is not really a Committee point but a Second Reading one. I quite understand the delicacy of feeling of my right hon. Friend and of his assistants and advisers, and that he would not wish to be held to be directing or indoctrinating the Boundary Commission. If, however, he will read carefully his speech, as he pronounced it today, my right hon. Friend will see that he said things which tended to limit the likelihood of the Commission acting under Section 2 (3).
I beg my right hon. Friend to reflect upon that, and to consider whether more ought not to be said and done to make it likely that there will be partially corrective initiative taken and that we shall not where anomalies subsist get the maximum interval between general adjustments.
If the House will bear with me for two more minutes, I will give additional reasons why I think I was entitled to have those hopes, and still am entitled to hope that the Home Secretary will do his best in this matter. On 3rd May, 1956, I wrote to the County Council of Nottinghamshire a letter which I sent through the Home Secretary so that it was seen in his Department. In this letter, I said:
I saw the Home Secretary the other day and I think he quite understands our view that if anything were to be done tending to lengthen specifically or by altering the conditions, the period between redistributions, then it would be necessary to consider the hard case of Nottinghamshire before it were extended by such lengthening of the period.
Upon the basis of that letter I think I should have been entitled to expect that there might have been some consultation in these matters, not only along party lines, as we have read in the newspapers and have been told today that parties have been consulted, the usual channels, and so on. I was entitled to expect that there would be consideration in time, and of such a nature that private Members might conceivably affect the ultimate result.
A week later on 10th May I said in a Question:
…Nottinghamshire may be entitled to hope for consideration of the submission that anything tending to lengthen the interval

between adjustments will be preceded by removal of what was, and is, generally thought objectionable in the 1955 redistribution.
The answer of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department was:
I am aware of my hon. Friend's desire that in any wider review in the future the point that he has made tonight should not be overlooked, and I think he has received a reasonable assurance that it will not be overlooked when the time comes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1545 and 1546.]
This, in some sense, is a small matter. I know we are all rather tired of it. I am quite excited about Hucknall and West Bridgford, but there are other chaps who are not. We want to get rid of discussion and forget it for fifteen years because it has gone on a long time; but it is necessary to remember that we are in a sense doing the deepest thing we ever have to do, that is to say, making the rules which direct and control the character of ourselves, if we live long enough, and of our successors.
I hope I have made it plain that it seems to me that, though the Bill may be, and in my judgment on the whole is, right, to have proceeded to this Measure without any preliminary attempt to correct what seemed to be wrong from our debates three or four years ago really is taking it the wrong way round; and I think it may easily end in defeating the object, namely, to avoid the necessity for more legislation.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) will not feel affronted if I offer him my sympathy and support on the point he raised last, because to my mind what happened in Nottinghamshire in its relationship with the City on the last review was about the worst example of the way in which the fundamental rules appear to have been ignored. I will not go beyond that but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, at the time I felt strongly on the matter. Whilst my indignation was probably somewhat discounted by the fact that I had so many Orders over which to express my indignation, I certainly regarded Nottingham and Nottinghamshire as being the best examples of the way this ought not to be done.
This is really a very modern difficulty with which we are dealing. It was only


from the Speaker's Conference held during the Second World War that the idea of a permanent Boundary Commission emerged. Prior to that, from 1885 to 1918, there was no review and there had been no review between 1867 and 1885. All three of those dates coincide with substantial alterations in the suffrage itself.
I am not convinced that the experiment has worked well. The difficulty of framing the rules so that they mean the same thing to the House as they do to the Boundary Commissions has been a perpetual trial. I had to make two or three efforts to get this going for the first review after the Second World War, and the difficulties that have been created make me wonder very much whether it is worth while trying to have a permanent Boundary Commission. So to that extent I share the doubts that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington).
I announce with reluctance that I do not share the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about the unimportance of local government boundaries. It is a great difficulty for the ordinary elector if, for one set of elections, he is with one group of people and, for another set of elections, he is with a quite different group of people. It is highly desirable that the communities created for various Government purposes in this country should as far as possible be able to express themselves as units on all the occasions when a community view is sought.
I have an amazing example of that in my own constituency. I represent nearly 75,000 electors, and the Boundary Commission proposed to lop four wards from my county borough and annexe them to Jarrow. To my surprise, all the political feeling in the borough was against that alteration. People said, "We are a community and we wish to speak as a community." While the Conservatives would probably have gained a seat out of the rearrangement of southern Tyneside, they were as vehement in their opposition to the change as were my supporters. They said, "We do not want to have a Member and a bit, with the bit possibly cancelling out what the rest of us want to do." That is a very sound position.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman has described exactly the present situation in Blackburn. I am the "bit" in that case and I cancel out the hon. Lady who represents Blackburn.

Mr. Ede: The same sort of thing happened in the borough in which I reside, Epsom and Ewell, which was to lose a couple of wards to Surbiton. Anyone who can imagine anything more annoying to a person living in Epsom and Ewell than being brigaded with Surbiton has a more vivid imagination than I have. I am glad to say that in that case also the second thoughts of the Boundary Commission were not to divide along local government lines.
I admit that it may be possible in some extreme cases to do some things one does not like, but I believe that we serve better here when we speak as Members for a community which has a sense of its individual existence than when we merely represent an average number of electors who have been chopped about without any regard to their other civic associations which must to some extent colour their views of national and international issues.
I welcome the arrangement which was inaugurated by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, by which, when internal arrangements occur in a divided borough with more than one Member, the parliamentary seats are rearranged so that they represent a number of wards and not three wards and a bit of a ward. That has been the main feature of the interim Orders which have been made. When a county borough has been extended to include a few acres from the adjoining county—in these latter days not generally having very many electors, but having ground for a new housing estate within the county borough boundaries—it has been a good thing that the parliamentary seat should be re-arranged to cover the area of the enlarged county borough. I hope that nothing will interfere with that internal re-arrangement which enables local and national boundaries to be the same as far as possible.
I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said about taking large areas as units for consideration. To take areas like the County of London, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and Lancashire, to include all the county boroughs in the latter two


and say that they are entitled to one more or one less, and then, to make the new jigsaw puzzle intelligible, having to alter all the county is not the correct approach. Areas like the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire are geographical rather than administrative counties.
If the hon. Member for Carlton does not object to my alluding to his position again, I recall that in order to make some quite small adjustment in the boundaries and numbers in the City of Nottingham, every seat in the City of Nottingham and in the county had to be altered, except that of the hon. Member. One reason why he was able to speak with some authority was that it was clear that he was not objecting to anything which had happened to him. That, in order to make some small correction, so many people should be put to the inconvenience of a change of constituency boundaries is indefensible, and I hope that a smaller area can be chosen. After all, it is not the fault of the rules. This is something which the Boundary Commissioners invented for themselves. They were not compelled to take a whole county, or a great mass of population like those to which I have referred.
I want to refer to what was said about the difference between an urban and a rural area, between county and borough in England. I stand by everything I said which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary quoted. There is ground for some slight weighting where there is what might be called a genuine county constituency. Some county constituencies are really a group of fairly big towns with all the characteristics of a borough. On the last occasion, the one thing which really happened on Tyneside was that Jarrow was turned from a county constituency into a borough constituency with virtually the same population. In the home counties and elsewhere what are nominally county constituencies should be borough constituencies, particularly urban districts such as Merton and Morden where one urban district has become a borough constituency which not so long ago was part of a county constituency.
I share the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering about the under-representation of England in the House. The number of Members for Scotland depends on the Treaty of Union and the Act of Union

and I do not want to go back on that, unlike the Tories who made the Act of Union with Ireland and gave her 100 Members and then, some fifty years ago, spent much time trying to get rid of them by a mere Act of Parliament, after having signed a Treaty. I would not abrogate the Treaty with Scotland, but I understand that it is not regarded with much favour by most Scotsmen, who think that the methods by which is was obtained were not exactly those that we should regard as suitable for such negotiations in these days.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, whose English courtesy is ready to come to the aid of an oppressed minority north of the Border. It is a fact that some of us have had cause to raise our eyebrows when we have learned of the strange procedural manœuvres that were gone through in the Scottish Parliament by the Liberals—the Whigs of those days—at the expense of the Jacobites and Tories, to arrange the choice of Commissioners to negotiate the Treaty of Union so that it would favour Whig principles.
Having said that, however, I must point out that, as a nation, the people of Scotland are content to allow that particular sleeping dog to lie. They want the Union to continue.

Mr. Ede: I am not quite sure whether I am interrupting the hon. Member or whether he is interrupting me—but I will let that pass. I cannot think that in these days it is right that England should be under-represented in the House to the extent that she is.
If we took the same quota for England as exists at the moment for Scotland we should redress the balance and be able to feel that we were still preserving the Act of Union, which, after all, took place at a time when electoral quotas, and a relationship between the electorate and the constituency, had no real meaning, and when Old Sarum, Bletchingley, Haslemere and the rest were returning two Members of Parliament while quite large places of modern origin returned no one. I imagine that at that time it was felt that as there were only 72 Scotsmen they could be looked after. In these days, however, when some regard is had to equality of representation over a fairly wide area, the under-representation of England calls for remedy.

Mr. John Taylor: This is the fourth time that this complaint has been made about the under-representation of England. All my Scottish colleagues probably fully appreciate the dilemma which exists, but there is another side to the picture. It is not merely a question of the Act of Union; two other considerations must be borne in mind. First, there is the geographical impossibility of representing a constituency containing within it places as far apart as London and York, as is the position in some Scottish constituencies, and, secondly, there is the fact that there are 511 English Members who vote upon Scottish matters and only 71 Scottish and 36 Welsh Members. National rights should be given some consideration.

Mr. Ede: My effort to advance this argument non-controversially has aroused two persons to rush upon me with their claymores.
I also stand by what my hon. and learned Friend said in regard to areas where great geographical difficulties are experienced. I share his view about places such as Orkney and Shetland, and the crofting counties. We cannot expect any person to undertake the representation of such areas upon any basis depending solely upon population and taking no account of the great distances to be travelled and the problem of keeping in touch with so diverse an area.
In the case of the lowland stretch of Scotland, with its great industrial belt, however, there can be no suggestion that it should expect to receive a representation beyond that which is enjoyed by industrial areas in England.

Mr. William Ross: The point that my right hon. Friend is making as between Scotland and England is equally valid as between the Lowlands of Scotland and the crofting counties.

Mr. Ede: I thought that I had dealt with that point already. I will not go over it again.
Trying to put the thoughts of the House into an Act of Parliament is a very difficult and intricate process. I speak as one who has had to try to do it. The fact that we now have this Bill in front of us is some indication of the lack of success that followed my effort. I am certain that the views advanced by my hon. and learned Friend—except in the matter of

local government boundarie—represent the most just way of dealing with the present situation. I sincerely hope that, with some Amendments, which pay attention to the views expressed this afternoon, the Bill will remove some of the anxieties that the present law causes not merely to Members of Parliament but to the communities that they represent.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: The Bill will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House so far as it increases the period between the redistribution of seats to a minimum of ten and a maximum of fifteen years. It will be generally accepted that in the matter of the distribution of seats the less interference we have, at short intervals, the better it will be.
It will also be agreed that most Members would dislike losing parts of the populations which they represent, whether such parts agree with their political thoughts or not. Most Members have an affection for the people in their constituencies, and would desire to continue to represent them all. There conies a time, however, when a Member must consider whether he is able to represent his constituents adequately, and I suggest that that time is reached when the population in a constituency grows to about 60,000.
We have heard much this afternoon of small constituencies with populations of 40,000 and fewer and large ones of 60,000 or 65,000—and we have had reference to an exceptionally large one of 75,000. I would point out that the constituency which I represent—Hornchurch, in Essex—contains, at the moment, 88,000 people. I believe that it is the largest in the country. The official figures, based on the building which is going on, suggest that at the end of 1959 the figure will exceed 90,000. I am sure that most Members would place first in their thoughts the service which they can give to the individuals who send them to Parliament and have a right to look upon them as the watchdogs of their interests. A Member cannot do that adequately when he is representing 88,000 people.
We have heard that the Bill will in no way affect Section 2 (3) of the old Act, and its general powers. I suggest we might consider the general powers and whether they were invoked at any time.
They were invoked to make minor alterations but upon a suggestion that a reasonably large alteration should be made, it was always said that Section 2 (3) was not meant for the purpose. Today my right hon. Friend appeared to suggest that Section 2 (3) could be used for this purpose. I wonder whether that is correct or whether the Boundary Commission has interpreted it in that way.
Last January my local urban district council—it may seem strange to hon. Members that the district is still an urban district, although it is not through any fault of the local council, for it has applied for borough status often enough —advised that the electorate had gone past 86,500. In August the Boundary Commission was asked that a report be submitted to the Secretary of State requesting the creation of a further seat. I have no way of knowing, nor has the district council, whether that was done, or what has happened to that request, or what is likely to happen in the future.
I suggest that unless we are careful we shall find that today we have reached a position where, when such an application is made in the future, the reply will be, "We have no power to do as you ask, and you must wait another ten or fifteen years." If an area such as mine, comprising 88,000 electors, is expected to wait at least another five years, possibly ten, before anything can be clone, that will cause injustice, and I ask that the matter be considered.
Some remarkable figures are contained in the Boundary Commission Report of November, 1954. For each of 136 of the English seats there are between 55,000 and 60,000 electors. A total of 111 seats each have an electorate of between 50,000 and 55,000 electors, but only eight seats have the very high figures of between 75,000 and 80,000 electors. I wish to remind the House that the figure of 88,000 in my constituency is 8,000 above that figure and that today, when we have been talking about an average of 4,000 between seats we have been referring to electorates of about 50,000 electors.
I wish to know whether Section 2 (3) will be applicable in such cases as are represented by my constituency. I should like my right hon. Friend to make clear that an urban district which is adjacent to another area may be moved from its

present constituency, provided that it is moved in its entirety. If a whole urban district is moved from one constituency, it is different from when a borough is cut into and two or three wards are taken away. I apologise for making constituency points, but the 88,000 people in Hornchurch consider that they had a raw deal at the last redistribution, and they wish me to plead for a fair deal for them today.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I support the plea for further representation for England compared with Scotland and Wales. The reason this matter has arisen is, I think, because of the conclusions reached at the Speaker's Conference in 1944 of which I was a member. There we tried to do two things which have not worked out in practice. We accepted the fact that Scotland and Wales should have a larger representation than their population entitles them to. That was due partly to the position following the Act of Union and partly because we considered that the two smaller nations should have a larger representation because they were smaller.
When we considered how this was to be done the point arose that there were many large areas with small populations and they should have a big representation because of the difficulty of representing them in this House. Therefore, we fixed minimum figures for Scotland and Wales below which their representation should not fall. We went on to fix a quota for the whole of the United Kingdom while ensuring that the figures for Scotland and Wales never fell below the minimum. It was assumed that, roughly speaking, a constituency in Glasgow would have an electorate of about the same size as a constituency in Newcastle, Birmingham, or London. I cannot see why there should be a much larger representation given to Glasgow in comparison with other big industrial centres. It was the intention of the Speaker's Conference to see that justice was done in this matter.
Another fear which governed our discussions then was that in the 1920's and 1930's there had been a drop in the population of Scotland and Wales and Members were frightened that a general redistribution might lead to a reduction in the number of their seats. This proposal was intended to guarantee against


such a reduction. There has not been a drop in the population in Scotland and Wales but there has been a big relative increase in the English population which has been going on continuously since then and looks as though it will continue.
Already we have this deficiency of an 8,000 average between English constituencies compared with Welsh and Scottish constituencies, and that will increase. I consider it is unfair, and English people are beginning to protest. I suggest we should reach some figure of what the difference should be between the average Scottish and Welsh and the English constituencies, and stick to that. Let us say, for example, 5,000. If the relative increase in the English population continues, the English membership should rise. We could allow the representation to go quite a long way before we reach the figures which existed before the Irish Republic became a separate country. If eventually we find that the numbers are getting too large we might look at the Scottish and Welsh representation again and their number of seats. That, however, is unlikely to arise. I suggest that we give Scotland and Wales an agreed extra quota compared with England and then allow the English representation to increase so that we do not have an increasing English deficiency.
I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden). I represented the old constituency of Romford for ten years and in 1945 its electorate was 207,000. When I first represented it the figure was 169,000 which was only seventeen years after the general redistribution in 1918. That represents an abnormal growth in a district; as has already been mentioned there is a likelihood of quite a number of areas growing very rapidly when compared with the country as a whole.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch that there is great danger in a Bill of this kind that in trying to avoid existing difficulties we may create new difficulties which will prevent justice from being done to areas of rapidly growing population. We must consider how we can reconcile these difficulties. I agree very strongly with the case which has been made that as far as possible constituencies should represent local government units and constituency

boundaries should coincide with local government boundaries. Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that we do not want to upset these boundaries more often than we can help.
It is desirable that a constituency should be a continuing unit as far as possible and for as long as possible. In the county areas and over a large part of the country, where the population does not change very rapidly, surely that can be achieved and we can have such continuity. On the other hand, we have to reconcile this desirability of continuity and of having local government units represented in the House with the opportunity to make new arrangements to deal with an abnormal growth of population in particular instances. I do not think it is impossible to reconcile those two.
The Boundary Commissioners should have quite clearly laid down the duty to consider a particular town or a particular area and to give it an extra Member if it is thought to be justified by an increase in population in that area. This should be done as a particular step at a particular moment and I do not think it need involve an overall redistribution either throughout the country or throughout the county concerned. We need this right to give additional Members where there has been a sudden, large increase in population. The case of Hornchurch has been mentioned. Hornchurch is growing rapidly and it has rightly been said that it would be very unfair if the area were not given extra representation for a very long time ahead.
We must also consider the new towns, and in this respect I want to ask the Home Secretary one or two questions. As I understand the position, where local government boundary changes have taken place under existing rules and regulations, and where areas have been brought into new constituencies in this way, these new boundaries will operate at the next election. Will that be so, for example, in the case of Crawley? The town of Crawley was originally in three different county council areas and five different local authority areas. It now forms an urban district and I believe that all of it has been placed inside West Sussex. I therefore imagine that all of it will come within one constituency; Horsham is, I.


believe, the one concerned. Will that be the case for the next election or not? It is a major change. The new urban district was set up in 1956 and I believe that under the present law the situation which I have just outlined will apply. Will that be set aside by the new Bill?
All of the new town of Harlow is inside the Epping constituency, which is already a very large constituency. The Woodford constituency, which was separated from it, is much smaller. There is a case for making Harlow a separate constituency and handing Epping back to Woodford to make the numbers more nearly equal, thus ensuring that Harlow as a new community is represented in the House.
Basildon at present is partly in the constituency of Thurrock and partly in Billericay. The whole of the new town has now been brought inside the Billericay urban district. Will it be inside that constituency when the next election is held? Will all the local government boundary changes which have been made in recent years, or which may be made between now and the date of the next election, operate at the next election if this Bill is passed?
I do not think any of us would suggest that any general revision of local government boundaries which takes place when the Local Government Bill has been passed should be taken into account at the next election: that must wait until a new general redistribution takes place throughout the country. I am concerned about the changes which will take place before the next election or which have taken place recently. We have a right to be given an answer about that.
All round Greater London large increases in population are taking place. This reinforces the point which I made about new towns. Apart altogether from the creation of new towns, there are other rapidly growing townships in the Greater London area. No doubt this is also true of some other industrial parts of the country where new industries are growing up. In such cases we see extreme differences in the size of electorates. For example, there are quite small electorates in the two East Ham seats, Woodford and the two Walthamstow seats, whereas there are big electorates nearby, such as the 75,000 in my constituency, the large

electorate in Hornchurch and other large ones in Epping, Billericay and Thurrock.
I agree that there is not a case for the redistribution of individual constituencies until they reach a certain size, but we want to know the position not only in the new towns but also in areas such as Hornchurch which have rapidly growing populations. Will they be given justice under the Bill? We hope that on the first big revision the needs of the Home Counties and of the constituencies forming a ring round London will be recognised and that redistribution will take place throughout this area. I should like the point to be borne in mind. The ten-year minimum for a general review is the longest minimum to which we can agree; and, whilst agreeing to it, I should like to urge the need to write into the Bill special provisions dealing with areas growing at an abnormal rate. It will be unfair if we do not do so.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I shall be very brief because we all seem to be in agreement. I wish to emphasise the point made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about the importance of permitting the rules to give greater priority to the inconvenience of breaking local ties and, particularly, of splitting county boroughs. As I said in an intervention, unfortunately or perhaps fortunately I have the experience of representing three wards of a county borough, a non-county borough, an urban district council and a rural district council, and I therefore have a complete spectrum of different kinds of local authority in my constituency. It is almost impossible for me to take any view of any matter of local government reform without offending at least one of them.
Most hon. Members will remember the occasion when Mr. Assheton, as he then was, divided the House and when the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) told against the proposal. I remember the excitement of that occasion. It seemed once again that anything I said then was certain to annoy someone. It would have seemed rather inhospitable to grumble at the arrangements, particularly as we were assured from the Government benches that these things would shake down and that, over the years, the constituents who


were transferred from those three wards of the proud and great County Borough of Blackburn would gradually find their loyalties would shift into their new constituency.
I am obliged to tell the House that that optimistic forecast was not fulfilled. The reason is that in those three wards the people are accustomed to organising themselves to conduct their local elections. They still vote in local elections in that county borough. The parties are organised as a whole. Both parties found it extremely difficult to break that loyalty to the county borough organisation and felt themselves interlopers in the county even after four years, and
vice versa.
I am saying these few words only because I should like to think that no other borough will endure this painful, if not humiliating, experience that Blackburn has had to suffer. If Blackburn has had to suffer so that other places will not suffer, that is something of a consolation, but not much.
I still do not understand the working of Clause 2 (2). Exactly what primacy is to be given to this new recognition that local government boundaries, and particularly county borough boundaries, are of importance? What gives trouble is that we are not courageous enough to say which rule shall prevail. We say that attention shall be given to this, that and the other, but we never quite have the courage to say what, in a case of conflict, shall prevail. Until we do that it can only be a vague suggestion in the Bill that regard should be increasingly had to one rule over another. I still fear, upon my reading of the subsection, that we have not yet sufficiently clear instructions that local government boundaries are to be regarded as more important than the altar of arithmetic upon which the County Borough of Blackburn was, on the last occasion, sacrificed.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and the County Borough of Blackburn who have together suffered such difficulties. The hon. Member for Darwen has drawn attention to a very real difficulty to which I do not think there is a complete answer. We have heard about con-

stituencies of 88,000 people. I represent a constituency of exactly the opposite sort. Patriotic as I am, I cannot suggest that every Shetlander or Orcadian is worth two and a half Londoners in an election.
There are all sorts of difficulties all over the country. There is only one real, practical solution. It is that that was put forward earlier in the debate, and that is to be fairly lavish in increasing the number of Members of this House. I am not afraid of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that this would mean such an enormous increase that it would become absurd.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I said that the increase might be about seventy.

Mr. Grimond: Surely it would not be seventy if we merely brought some relief to the very large constituencies. It would only be seventy if there were complete mathematical equality. We need not do that. I do not see how we can give priority among the various criteria enjoined on the Commission. But I would join other hon. Members in saying that we should not chop about constituencies too much and should have regard to local government areas.
I want to say a word for the very large and under-populated areas. I was afraid when the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) began that he was going to allow his loyalty for Kettering to smother his partiality for Argyll. No doubt, however, if he were in danger of that his wife would correct him.

Mr. Mitchison: I kept well in mind the special geographical considerations of the crofting counties.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are indeed very special geographical considerations. For example, I have to travel some 200 miles, some of them very rough indeed. It is not only a question of what I have to travel; if a constituent wants to see his Member it is impossible if we cut down the use of cars, especially in the North of Scotland and in rural Wales.
There is a certain amount of justice in the demand for extra Members for England. We have had a lecture on the


Act of Union and some advice on intrigue from the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) whose ancestors intrigued hourly in the somewhat tangled history of Scotland. My recollection is that they changed so quickly from one side to the other that it would have been impossible to pin them down as Whigs or Tories. I do not believe that the Act of Union intended to do more than lay down a minimum number of constituencies in Scotland. It was never intended to result in such unjustly large English constituencies. Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult to reallocate a great number of constituencies in Scotland, or probably in England, because Once we start the process and begin moving boundaries we are led on and on until we reach the point of total redistribution.
In considering the size of constituencies, we must remember not only the Member's difficulties but the constituent's. He wants to see his Member occasionally. And we might, incidentally, make it easier for him to vote. The distances in my constituency make limitation on cars perfectly absurd.
I very much urge the Government to give consideration, before we pass the Bill, to the questions that have been raised about Section 2 (3) and to the possibility of giving a fairer deal to areas which were unfairly treated. There are certain areas which believe they have been badly treated, and the Bill will be much better received in the country if something is done to put that matter right before it is passed into law.
Finally, I would add that the Home Secretary asked whether other parties have concurred in writing a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of representation in the Boundary Commissions. We have done that, and we agree with the proposal put forward about representations to the Boundary Commissions.
I should like to mention one further small point and say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South about Clause 4 and the desirability that reasons should be given if changes are made. If no explanation is offered to the public, people are apt to be suspicious. A further suggestion of his about how we should handle orders under the Bill needs some further consideration. As long as it is clear that it will not limit debate there is everything to be said for it. But many other hon. Members want

to put forward their points of view on such orders. If the orders are taken together, we must ensure that the rights of hon. Members are preserved.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I hope the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will not think that because I agree with him on certain points this is some dark Lauderdale intrigue. So far two broad considerations have come before the House. One is what I might call the "English-Scottish point". The other is the case of overspill in new town areas and the inactivity of the Boundary Commission hitherto under Clause 2 (3) of the 1949 Act. This latter issue mainly concerns me because I have a new town in mind at this time.
I was much struck by the story of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) with his 88,000 constituents -something that seems an enormity in the days of the Welfare State and increasing demands on a Member for what one might call welfare service of one kind or another. I most urgently wish to reinforce his plea, and that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and others, all of whom asked for some assurance from the Government spokesman who is to reply as to the intention to make proper use of Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act, so that we do get interim reviews from time to time where they are needed.
It was rather disturbing to have it suggested by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the real purpose of that subsection is to enable, here and there, the appropriate measures to be taken at Parliamentary level to accord with local government changes. It rather suggested, and I should like to have that suggestion corrected, that the first initiative for an interim review has to be some local government boundary change. Then what happens when, for some reason or other, an anomaly is growing up and a local government boundary change does not take place, though it may well be overdue?
On the broad English-Scottish point, I must say that I feel rather as does the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, that we, in Scotland, could probably take on another ten, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty English Members without noticing


very much difference. I think that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will probably agree that we could take on quite a lot of English Members without much real loss to Scotland. There was, however, an important principle enshrined in the Act of Union and carried on in the 1949 Act. It was described by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick-thorn) as the organic rather than the arithmocratic principle.
I take it that he meant that there are in the United Kingdom, areas that have to be regarded as organic entities in themselves. England is undoubtedly one, and there must be due regard to a particular Scottish, a particular Welsh or a particular Ulster interest in the composition of a Parliament which is not an English Parliament but a Parliament of Great Britain. Perhaps I may remind the House of what is often forgotten—Great Britain became Great Britain when England joined Scotland. One thing in this House that irritates me more than another is to hear people talk about an Anglo-American or an Anglo-Egyptian —or whatever it may be—alliance. It is British.
I had intended primarily to address myself to the point that is introduced in the Bill about a distinct electoral quota for Scotland. It is not generally recognised, even in Scotland, that the Scottish electorate is shrinking. In 1955 it numbered 3,387,909. In 1954, the Scottish Boundary Commission ga a figure, when it listed the average of electors from the time that it started work, of 3,408,781. In the 1951 General Election the electorate numbered 3,421,433. In other words, between the two Elections there had been a shrinkage in the Scottish electorate amounting to the equivalent of about half of one average Scottish constituency.
By getting our own quota, we get a more reasonable norm by which the standard of constituency size can be judged and regulated in Scotland, so enabling the Boundary Commission to have proper regard to a point that has been casually overlooked by some of our English doubters; for one of the principles to which the Boundary Commission should pay regard is that of accessibility. In Scotland it will now be possible to revise the electoral quotas downwards, which is

of the very much greater dispersal of population. That will also make it possible to take into account an even more striking factor—the relative movement within that population.
The last review having been in 1954, there could, under the 1949 Act, have been another this year. As it is, there will not be any periodical review until 1963 or 1964, which means possibly after two Elections, and certainly after one. I know that this Bill represents the broad agreement between the two parties, and I imagine that it will be carried tonight—and, on the whole, in Committee—provided that we have the assurance that some of us have been asking for—that Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act is really to be operated.
The Scottish Boundary Commission Report gave certain figures about what are proper and what are improper sizes for constituencies. The Report issued in 1954 gave the average electorate in Scotland as 48,011, which it described, correctly, of course, as being considerably below the average electorate for the whole of Great Britain. It then said that,
…an electorate of the order of 68,000 or more is much too large for a Scottish county constituency.
In England it would not necessarily be held that 68,000 was much too large but, at any rate, that was the Commission's view in relation to Scotland. The Report went on to say that an electorate of 61,297 was
…on the high side for a Scottish county constituency.
Now that Scotland is to have her own electoral quota, it will, of course, be legitimate for the Boundary Commission to regard some figure lower than those already quoted as being, in the one case much too large and, in the other, on the high side.
I now come to a Lanarkshire point, which is not a party point. In this respect Lanarkshire has quite a long history, and hon. Members opposite will be reassured to know that the point I am about to make was first made by their party, and is alluded to in the Boundary Commission's Report as having come from the Lanark Labour Party. Broadly, what I am worried about is the position of the rapidly-growing new town of East Kilbride.
Under the 1949 Act one could have expected a periodical review between 1957 and 1964. We now know that there cannot be such a review until after 1964—between 1964 and 1969. That is a very long time for people in East Kilbride to wait, when they are not even getting the local government boundary changes for which they are clamouring, and which are widely thought to be overdue.
Population is rapidly moving into the place, and 700 houses are going up every year, which gives an average increase in the electorate of about 1,750. The scheduled programme is something like 1,000 houses a year, which means an extra 2,500 new electors every year. As far as we can judge, the electorate of that constituency has risen from about 51,000 at the last General Election to 56,000 now, and it will come well within sight of what the last Boundary Commission called "something on the large side". Under the new principle by which we are to have our own electoral norm, it will certainly be within sight quite soon of being "on the large side."
If we could feel happy that these interim local reviews were to take place, many of our anxieties about the Bill would fade away, but we gathered from the words used by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act is intended to refer to changes in local government boundaries, and the context of his reference suggested that they are to be stirred up and initiated only by such changes. At East Kilbride these changes have not taken place as they should. We have very great concern—at any rate, I have—for the simple democratic point that a block of people are relatively unrepresented.
It is normal in the County of Lanark for a county council constituency to number not more than 5,000, or perhaps 6,000, electors, but there are now 20,000 people living in East Kilbride. We have managed to get two county council seats, instead of one; but the present popular clamour is for four, and that has been refused by the county council, and refused, moreover, when this particular area contributes as much in rates as any other part of the county.
Then, there is the principle of accessibility, which, I suggest, applies not only

to geographical distances, but to what I might call psychological distances. Anyone who has to represent a county area, where things are done at a certain tempo and where the outlook is very much the same—and I say that whether thinking of miners or farmers, if they live in the country, because it has very much the same meaning—finds that he must also plunge himself into the affairs of a growing new town, with thousands of people coming in every year from other strange parts, from Glasgow or places down south. One finds a totally different atmosphere and mentality on top of the whole range of new problems peculiar to that area.
In the new town of East Kilbride one has all the problems and adjustments of the incomers, their furnishing problems, new rent problems, the problems of hospitals and health, and that of the relationship with a Development Corporation which is itself unrepresentative because appointed and not elected. There are the problems of the clamour for burgh status, and who will not agree that the Member of Parliament for the area should at least be able to be on hand, to give some time, thought, counsel and help to those clamouring for this quite natural and proper development in their local government institutions? How that can be done by a Member who must also represent 90 villages and must travel considerable distances, trudging about in the snow like Dr. Fuchs at the South Pole—these things are exceedingly difficult, and the principle of accessibility should be interpreted not only in geographical terms, but also in terms of psychology.
In my case, I am compelled to pay regard to what I might call decaying communities in some parts of the constituency. I myself have been to isolated villages like Leadhills, where one is sometimes held up by the snow, Crawford, Crawfordjohn, Forth, Law, and Carluke—several of them remote places and even quite small—which have just as much claim on their Member of Parliament and on his attention, even though they are small, as the great burgeoning new town of 20,000 people. It is the gruelling lot of the Member of Parliament who represents this extraordinary combination of places; but that is the problem that will concern anybody who is called upon to represent Lanark, as it certainly concerns me.
I come back to the critical point. We want an assurance tonight from the Government Front Bench that Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act will mean that there are to be interim reviews, that they will happen, broadly, when they are needed, and that the Government will not shove the problem off on the ground that a periodical review can look after it when the time comes. The last Boundary Commission Report for Scotland declared in paragraph 7:
We appreciate that the boundaries of Lanark constituency may have to be revised on the occasion of a subsequent periodical review, by which time East Kilbride new town may have developed considerably.
It has already developed considerably, and the periodic review under this Bill is put off for a number of years, and, thereby, a whole range of people are, in fact, disenfranchised.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I do not know how people in Lanarkshire will react to having their living conditions compared with those of Dr. Fuchs at the South Pole.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Exactly like they did last week-end.

Mr. Ross: Last week-end? I do not know whether we were having typical weather in Great Britain or anywhere else last week, but this business of the personal problems of Members of Parliament touches us all, and if and when any change is made in Lanarkshire exactly the same problem will arise elsewhere. Indeed, the problem of the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) is as nothing compared to those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and, indeed, of hon. Members representing some of the other counties of Scotland.
We all naturally welcome at first sight the idea of greater stability in the constituencies, and the idea that the period of three to seven years on the general review is rather short. I certainly feel it is an advantage to have ten to fifteen years as a maximum, but that can only be acceptable provided the periodic and interim reviews are indeed guaranteed.
It is not purely a question of the new towns. The people who are going into these new towns come from other towns, and we have the problem, for instance, of overspill and the changes in Glasgow, which contains about a quarter of the population of the whole of Scotland. At the moment, Glasgow has about fifteen Members, but Glasgow is going to overspill 300,000 people. Then, surely, it will only be right that there should be a periodic review in areas like these to ensure that justice and fairness as between one part of the city and another and between one part of the country and another is done. For instance, we are to have a by-election in Kelvingrove, and some people, looking at the majority there, might say, with a majority of only 2,800, what they can or cannot do.
I wonder whether people realise just how many electors there are in Kelvin-grove. This is not some widely scattered constituency but a constituency within the city. I understand that the electorate there, in the City of Glasgow, numbers between 30,000 and 55,000. Indeed, since the Bill was drafted a considerable number of people have already moved out. So there we have in a city what is probably one of the smallest constituencies in the whole of Scotland. Obviously, if that situation is to continue for another ten to fifteen years matters will become quite ludicrous in that constituency. I join with the hon. Member for Lanark in hoping that we shall have some assurance about interim reviews.
I can well understand the feelings of hon. Members representing English constituencies when they look at the average number of voters in Scottish constituencies; they feel that England is pretty ill done by. I entirely agree, but I do not think that the solution lies in reducing the number of seats in Scotland or in lamenting the fact that Scotland is guaranteed a certain number of seats. I do not think that the history I have been hearing about the Act of Union and so on is all that good.
The Act of Union never guaranteed the people of Scotland the number of seats they have at the present time, or anything like it. As far as I can recollect, the effect of the Act of Union was to rob us of a reasonably democratic Parliament and give us access to one which was far from democratic. The only extension of


democracy which came from the Act of Union was among the peers of Scotland, in allowing them to elect, as they still do, representatives to the House of Lords. The actual number at present guaranteed was fixed at a very much more recent date, and it was, of course, related not so much to any mathematical formula but to the actual geographic facts of the situation.
Someone spoke about cars at elections. A Member for the Western Isles does not worry about cars at election time; he worries about boats. The hon. Gentleman is worried about accessibility in Lanarkshire. My goodness!—if he just considers for a moment what some of his colleagues have to contend with in contacting their constituents in the Western isles and other crofter counties, he will have a better idea of what some of the problems are. Even on the borders, we have a Member representing not one county but three. That is w here the mathematical formula completely breaks down.
While we in Scotland probably have the same sort of complaints that there are some very large constituencies unbalanced in comparison with the electorate of some of the widely scattered ones, we must accept that situation and, at the same time, see that it does not produce injustice against the industrial population. I am sure the situation in Scotland is very much the same as in England. I should imagine that it takes fewer people to return a Member of Parliament if they live in a county as compared with a city. This is one fundamental grievance which has always persisted. I do not think we have solved it yet; the balance is still not right.
One of the reasons for stability in membership of the House from Scotland —there has been comparatively little change in the balance of parties since 1924—has been this balance between county and industrial population. Relatively speaking, the widely scattered areas with the smaller electorates, because of their geographic nature which cannot be altered, retain their Parliamentary electoral entity. This works to the disadvantage of the industrial areas because we are there tied to the number.
The solution is not to cast envious eyes at Scotland. If hon. Members feel

envious of Scotland, the obvious conclusion to draw is that they should have a fixed number and should redistribute, within themselves, that fixed number. Better than that, they should look at the obvious anomaly which arises when, for instance, a Member represents—as happens in Hornchurch—over 80,000 people. It is quite fantastic, particularly so when one compares that sort of size with the size of some constituencies in England. What is required, I feel, is a sorting out of the anomalies and a realisation that the present number in respect of England is not sacred but can be increased.
Let us look at the question of balance as between county and industrial town. There may be disadvantages from the point of view of the actual person who represents a constituency, in his ability properly or adequately to do his job because of the size of the place, and there may be a disadvantage and an unfairness to the people he represents inasmuch as they are under-represented in the House. I accept the underlying principles of the Bill and the extension from three to seven years to ten to fifteen years, but these other problems can be sorted out only if we have an assurance that there will be interim and periodic reviews so that we shall not have this continuing, aggravating situation of injustice and unfairness as between one Member of Parliament and another and between one constituency and another.

7.27 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will forgive me if I do not follow him round Scotland; I propose to talk about parts farther south.
The 1949 redistribution found Portsmouth a very bombed city, and the redistribution was a major one which took the political boundaries of Portsmouth miles outside the Portsmouth former area, to include places like Langstone, Hayling Island and Emsworth. There were previously, however, three seats more or less on the island of Portsmouth, including just a small portion outside. The bombing of Portsmouth made it necessary to extend the boundaries in order to continue the three seats.
Portsmouth had provided itself with a large amount of land outside the city


boundaries, and the rebuilding of Portsmouth started only after the 1949 redistribution. In fact, there had hardly been any rebuilding or redistribution of population, other than as a result of the bombing, until 1951. Since then, there has been an enormous redistribution, and my constituency is rapidly disappearing outside the boundaries of Portsmouth proper. Whereas Portsmouth, South and my constituency, Portsmouth, West, become smaller and smaller every year, Portsmouth, Langstone, which has only one tiny ward on the island of Portsmouth, is rapidly becoming bigger and bigger. Whereas Portsmouth, South and Portsmouth, West stand on the island and one has to cross a bridge to get there, Portsmouth. Langstone occupies but one ward in Portsmouth itself.
This is an extremely untidy arrangement. The majority of the workers work in my constituency in the dockyard and other smaller factories, and they all go to the dormitories of Langstone and elsewhere when they finish their work. It is the easiest thing in the world for them to hop off at my office on their way wherever they are going, and they all seem to expect me to look after their welfare and personal affairs. I am only too happy to do so, but I am afraid of getting myself in trouble with my two next-door neighbours in their dealings with their constituents.
When the trouble was at its height, Portsmouth, Langstone wrote to the Boundary Commission suggesting that Langstone was becoming too big and that Portsmouth, West was becoming too small. Nothing happened. The Times showed Portsmouth, West as having had a small boundary revision prior to the 1955 General Election. In point of fact, there was no revision whatsoever, although two wards were cut out of Portsmouth, West and joined up to other wards within West Portsmouth. The reason for cutting out these two wards was that wards were becoming so small that boundaries had to be amalgamated to give the wards some people to vote. We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) complaining about his constituency becoming bigger and bigger. I am complaining that mine is becoming smaller and smaller.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) said that he

hoped that before having the new rule of not having any revision for a minimum of ten and a maximum of fifteen years we would put our house in order. Before we commit ourselves to abandoning the existing scheme for altering constituencies we should ensure that everything is in apple pie order and then make sure that we want to do nothing more for ten or fifteen years. It was represented four or five years ago that a change should be made in Portsmouth. If it is to be put off for another ten years, I shall have about four boys and a dog to look after, whereas Portsmouth, Langstone will have an army corps.
Will the Minister look into the anomalies that exist in places like Hornchurch and Portsmouth? There is no political problem. The constituencies around Portsmouth are all Conservative, and it is merely a question of distributing the work more evenly. I hope that, if he cannot do that, my right hon. Friend will see that Section 2 (3) is applied as and when these constituencies become as small as mine is now becoming.

7.32 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: After our experience in the last debates on this subject, this is a very welcome change. I find myself in complete agreement for the second time with the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn).
I should first like to say a word about the composition of the Commission before coming to the amendments to the Act on questions of substance which have been so largely canvassed in the debate. The first point is a point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) with regard to the position of the Chairman of the Commission. The Speaker signs the Report of the Commission. He takes an extremely small part in its work and, in fact, is put in a position, as far as I can gather, of having nominal responsibility without really effective power. Under the new provisions, the Speaker does not even appoint a deputy chairman. The deputy chairman is a High Court judge and is, quite rightly, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That has led to the sort of feeling which was commented on by Mr. Ralph Assheton, the then hon. Member


for Blackburn, West, which my hon. Friend quoted. You, Sir, in the course of the debate, thought it would be advisable to remind the House of the rule in debate as affecting yourself. You said on 15th December, 1954:
So far as my own part in the Commission is concerned, I must remind the House of the ancient and salutary rule, that any criticism, express or implied, of the Chair should be put down in the form of a Motion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1916.]
All this emphasises the embarrassment in which everybody is involved, both, I venture to think, yourself and, certainly, hon. Members, by this arrangement by which the Speaker is the chairman of the Commission. I do not appreciate the reason why the Speaker should be the chairman of the Commission, although there must be a strong reason for it when the Speaker is retained as chairman despite the observations which were made during the course of the debate in 1954.
I suggest that, particularly when it is laid down that there is to be a High Court judge as a deputy chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor, that the occasion has now come to reconsider the Speaker's position.
The Home Secretary asked whether a letter had been sent by the Leader of the Opposition or on his behalf to the Speaker in the same sense as he had sent a letter. That has been done.
The first point of substance in these Amendments is the review period. As has been indicated, we are in favour of increasing the space between the reviews by substituting ten to fifteen years in place of the present rule of three to seven years. This brings me to what was the theme of almost every speech made in the debate, and that is the position under Section 2 (3) of the Act and the provision for interim reviews. Clearly, if the length between the regular reviews is to be increased, then the need for interim reviews is correspondingly increased. Only in individual exceptional cases is a review required.
I was perturbed by the Home Secretarys' reference to the operation of Section 2 (3). I agree with him that, as it stands, although it might be more clearly worded, under Section 2 (3) there is scope for reviews other than reviews

due to local government boundary operations. Therefore, the power is in Section 2 (3). The difficulty does not arise so much on the power as the way in which the power is applied. This power has never been applied in the past except for local government boundary alterations. What we are all concerned about is that they should be applied not only where local government boundary operations make it advisable, but when it is the reasonable thing to do in other cases as well.
The Home Secretary said that it had only been used for local government alterations, and he added the words "and rightly so". Is that meant to be a kind of policy directive to the Commission? There is no power in the Home Secretary to give a policy directive to the Commission. Why does he express that view? He said that it can be left to the Commission to operate the Section. But it is undesirable to leave it to the Commission to decide in what circumstances it will operate the Section. If the Commission does in future what it has done in the past, it will not apply the Section at all except in local government cases. One of our difficulties in dealing with the Commission and its history under the Act is that although the Act lays down certain rules quite clearly, the Commission has not acted in accordance with them. It has departed from them and made rules of its own, with the result that we do not know where we stand in applying the Act.
In Section 2 (3), for example, which is now under consideration, what are we to take as being in practice the operative consideration? As it stands, Section 2 (3) allows reviews for purposes other than, or as well as, local government boundary alterations. Is that the operative consideration, or are we to take as the operative consideration the fact that the Commission has in the past interpreted that Section in such a way as to mean that it is applied only in local government boundary alteration cases and none other?
What is important when we deal in Committee with Section 2 (3) is to make it clear beyond doubt, not that the Commission may, if it so feels inclined, apply that Section in local government boundary cases and in other cases, but that it shall do so and that it is not limited.
as in practice it has been in the past, to local government boundary alterations.
That is a policy decision for Parliament. It is not a matter that ought to be left to the discretion of the Commission. The Commission is merely an administrative machinery body exercising its discretion only within the ambit of policy decisions laid down by Parliament. This is a policy decision. It affects the whole policy upon which the electorates are based and operates. That is not a matter to be left to a tribunal of three men, however distinguished they may be. It is a policy decision which ought to be taken here in Parliament, and I hope that in the course of the Committee stage we shall make the policy operation of Section 2 (3) perfectly clear.
Surely, when there are cases like Horn-church and the new towns there should be an increase in representation. Horn-church is growing rapidly. We were told by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) that Hornchurch will soon have an electorate of 90,000 and it will be represented by one Member. The position is fantastic. Why is it contemplated at all that that position is tolerable?
I think I know the reason. It is that the last Commission, in the course of applying its interpretation of the rules under the Act, applied to London a certain number of Members and said that there could be no more than a certain number. If that extraordinary interpretation is to prevail, it means that if Hornchurch gets an additional Member, a Member must be lost elsewhere. In that event, the result is that there is no end to the readjustment that might take place in London. What should happen in such a case is that Hornchurch should simply be given an additional Member for the interim, London should get an additional Member in the House of Commons and the number of Members in the House should be increased by one. I hope that this will be made perfectly clear, not merely by speeches from the Government benches during this debate, but by actual Amendments to Section 2 (3) which lay down the policy.
The demand for the extension of the period between reviews is the result of the very natural reaction against the convulsion caused by the last Commission's

Report. Many of us pointed out at the time that the convulsion caused by the last Commission's Report was due largely to disregarding the provisions of the Act itself. There were three main factors. First, the Commission used an English instead of a Great Britain quota. Secondly, there was the Commission's policy of weighting in favour of county areas. Thirdly, the Commission regarded the county as the unit of distribution and treated the county boundaries as sacrosanct whilst not treating any other local government boundaries as sacrosanct. The lesson which emerges from the history of the last Commission and the revulsion against the eruption which has occurred is that the rules must be made absolutely clear. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in his comments about the rules. I hope that during the passage of the Bill we shall take the opportunity of making the rules clear and workable.
My next point concerns the view of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), in particular, about the result of the last Commission's Report being the basis of the new dispensation. That was a redistribution which led to strong opposition, of a non-party nature, in all parts of the House. As the hon. Member for Carlton said, when dealing with a new dispensation of this kind, with a longer period between reviews, it is the more necessary, to use the hon. Member's words, "to start from arrangements which are generally felt to be tolerable". I could not agree more with the hon. Member.
The two conclusions which arise from the feeling about starting from the last Commission's Report as the basis of the new dispensation are, first, that it very much strengthens the case for the interim review, and secondly, that it emphasises very strongly the need for clear and workable rules.
I come now to the rules themselves. The first provision on which I should like to comment is the amendment which is included in Clause 2 (2) of the Bill, which gives to the Commission a wide overall discretion. Again, I agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Darwen. I am not clear as to the precise effect of the Clause, but it seems that although it gives a wide overall discretion it possibly makes that discretion subject to one thing,


and one thing only: that is, Rule 4, which provides for local government boundaries; and for the first time local government boundaries are given an overriding priority over everything else. I do not know whether that is the intention. It may not be the correct interpretation. Certainly, there is ambiguity about it and it should be clarified. We would like to know exactly what is the Government's intention. When we know what it is, and when the House or the Committee decides what is its intention, we hope to see it embodied unmistakably clearly in a Clause in the Bill. That certainly has not been achieved as yet.
The question whether the Commission should be given this wide overall discretion depends upon what discretion is given and how—this is particularly important in view of our experience with the Commission—it is interpreted and applied. A discretion of this kind is a good thing if it is applied in the sort of case which I believe the Home Secretary indicated in his speech that he had in mind, for instance, in the case of a place like Southampton. In Southampton, the Commission moved 17,000 electors to reduce the difference between two borough divisions of Southampton by as little as 1,603. It did that to make that difference between two divisions of over 65,000 and in so doing over-ran the clearly recognised habitual division of Southampton to one side or another of an avenue which runs right through the town. A similar thing happened in Plymouth.
If the purpose of this discretion is to avoid rather ridiculous arrangements of that kind, I am sure that everybody would be in favour of it, but the danger of the discretion as it now stands is that it would go very much further than that. It would go to the extent of sanctioning and justifying heavy weighting in favour of country areas against town areas. Let us consider how the Commission itself operated the powers it already had. First, of all, as is quite clear from its Report, it favoured weighting in favour of country areas, although there is no justification for that inside the rules themselves. Secondly, it stretched Rule 6, that is the one dealing with special areas, to the limit. Thirdly, it treated Rule 4, dealing with local government boundaries, as sacrosanct in the case of counties, but not in the case

of county boroughs or any other local government areas. The result is that we have a substantial weighting in favour of county areas following on the Commission's last Report.
Before the Report was published, the disparity between the average county and the average borough was 1,793. The Report increased that disparity by 2,184, making the disparity between the average county and the average borough division now 3,977.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is that for England only or for England and Wales?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: For England.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is fair to remember that, before, there were cases where large boroughs had smaller average constituencies than surrounding communities. Therefore, it was bound to shift the thing the other way.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am dealing with the overall position. There are exceptions. The case of Kelvingrove has been given as an instance of the exceptions, but this is the overall position and that disparity has been increased.
The answer to all this is that the discretion to be given to the Commission to achieve the kind of local adjustment which is obviously sensible in the instances which I have given of Southampton and Plymouth should be a discretion which is marginal, operating in individual cases for local adjustments. But it should not be a discretion which would over-ride the whole operation of the rules and provide a disparity between county areas as a whole and town areas as a whole which is really quite intolerable. In other words, the policy decision should cover the whole picture and should be laid down by Parliament, and the discretion of the Commission should operate in such a way in local cases as not to alter or distort that overall picture.
It is all the more necessary that the policy decisions should be taken by Parliament because there is no effective appeal against the Commission's decisions. There is no effective appeal to the courts and, as has been shown on the last occasion, there is no effective appeal to Parliament. It is vital, therefore, that these rules should embody Parliament's decisions on the kind of electoral


arrangements which Parliament wants, and there should be discretion to operate only within these policy arrangements.
I come lastly to the electoral quota, which of course is bound up completely with the number of seats. It may be desirable to have an English electoral quota instead of a Great Britain electoral quota. There is no objection to having provision for that in the rules, but the true significance of whether we have an English quota or a Great Britain quota is the difference in the number of seats that are provided by these quotas.
We accept an English electoral quota, but the important thing is the number of seats. The number of seats for Wales and for Scotland is virtually fixed. Therefore, the variable factor is England; and it is England that is affected by the change from a Great Britain electoral quota to the English electoral quota. Because the Great Britain quota is lower than the English quota, the result of the change would be to sanction, in accordance with the rules, fewer seats for England than would be obtained if the Great Britain quota were operated. On the last occasion, the Commission, contrary to the rules, operated the English quota, and what we are now contemplating doing through this amending legislation is to adopt that in the rules.
If the Great Britain quota had been operated, as contemplated by Parliament, England would have had as its norm on the last occasion of redistribution 519 seats instead of the norm being 506 seats, later increased by the Commission to 511. If 519 seats had been given to England instead of 511, that itself would have solved quite a number of the Commission's difficulties. And if 519 seats had been given to England, the result would have been that we should have had 626 Members of Parliament instead of 618. It has been said in the debate that there is nothing sacrosanct about the figure 618, and it has been mentioned that between 1801 and 1918 there were 33 to 35 more members of Parliament than there are now.
What should be our approach to the problem of the number of Members to sit in the House of Commons? Surely we agree in principle, whatever the difficulties of application

may be, that overall we should have one vote, one value. That is the ideal which we should make a serious effort to approach. If now we regarded the average English county seat and decide what workable numbers of electors that seat would provide, the ideal would be to make that the norm for all electorates in the country.
We have some indication about what the norm should be in the case of Scotland. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) to the reference in the Scottish Report to the electorate of 61,000 odd being on the high side for a Scottish county constituency. Of course, 61,000 odd is above the English electoral quota, so there should be nothing excessive in producing a number which would enable ordinary English county seats to be fully and adequately represented, to produce workable areas for Members of Parliament and, at the same time, not to produce an average discrepancy of nearly 4,000 between county seats and town seats. I hope, therefore, that when we reach the Committee stage we will consider increasing the rather arbitrary number of seats now laid down in the rules.
This would also have the effect desired on both sides of the House of having what are called organic constituencies or continuity, historical associations, and so on. All that could be far more easily accommodated, as the Leader of the Liberal Party indicated, if we increased the number of seats instead of keeping to the figure of 613, which vitiates so much the proper democratic representation of the country.
I summarise the position in the rules in this way. First, the rules should be clarified to make policy decisions by Parliament absolutely clear. Secondly, there should be provision within the rules against weighting in favour of the county areas as a whole against town areas as a whole. It need not be done in that express form, but this effect could be produced. Thirdly, there should be an increase in the number of seats in England, so that whilst the county seats are not too large, there should be reasonable equality of representation and of electorate as between counties and borough. Fourthly, the discretion of the Commission should be merely marginal in individual cases and there should not


be overriding rules which would distort the balance contemplated by Parliament itself.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) in his observation that it is most important for all that is done in the Act, under the Act and by Amendment of the Act to be not only fair but to be thought to have been done fairly. I hope that when we consider this Bill in Committee, the objective approach which has been so clear throughout this debate will continue, and that we shall have an agreed, and I hope improved, Bill as a result of our work.

8.4 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I can say with some assurance that the House has given a general welcome to the Bill. I am sure that the Boundary Commissions will pay careful attention to everything that has been said in the debate, and that they will not be slow to notice that it is not felt that everything in the garden is lovely but that there are some things which might well be put right. There has been some talk about where the initiative lies in putting things right. The mere fact that we have had this debate in the House, that these matters are raised, and that the Boundary Commissions are bound to study what is said here, means that to some extent there is an initiative here. That is one answer, though not by any means the entire answer, which I hope to develop during the rest of my speech.
I will now deal with a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). He laid great stress on the need for clarification of the rules. We all agree with him that this is desirable and that they should be as clear as possible. In studying the rules, I cannot fail to observe that, whilst it is possible to make them clearer, it does not seem to be possible to draft them in such a way that they may not contradict each other in certain cases. Therefore, a discretion must be left to the Boundary Commissions to deal with specific cases, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself recognised.
The House has agreed that changes were being made too frequently, and that was the genesis of this Bill, which stems

from the 1954 debate. Indeed, that was one of the main criticisms made throughout that debate. The Bill proposes to alter Section 2(2) of the 1949 Act so as to lengthen the period within which each Commission must submit a new report, at present not less than three years and not more than seven years, to a minimum of ten years and a maximum of fifteen years.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) that I would have thought this in itself would tend to make legislation less frequent. He asked how many times legislation had been made in the last few years. Indeed, it is true that there have been four Acts of Parliament, including one which was a consolidation Act. One could also reckon, perhaps, the debate on the Reports, followed by the debate on the Statutory Instruments in 1954, as an additional occasion. I should have thought, however, that lengthening the period would have tended to mean that legislation in the future would be less frequent. Indeed, just as one of the objectives is to secure more continuity within the constituencies, so it is the purpose of the Bill to secure more continuity in legislation.
Another major criticism made of the 1949 Act was that the Commission was obliged to give too much weight to mathematical equality. Rule 5 is specific on this:
The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules…
It goes on, as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East pointed out, to exempt the Commission from the strict application of Rule 4 which, as the House knows, enjoins the Commissioners as far as possible not to cut across boundaries in order to secure greater mathematical equality between an electorate on the one hand and its neighbouring electorates on the other, where differences are substantial.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) thought that local authority boundaries should not be given preference over other factors, but it seems to me from the balance of the debate today that this is not the general feeling of the House. Whilst it may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in thinking that it might be possible to import more clarity


into this provision, the House generally seems to feel that Rule 4 should be given this rather special treatment.
Anyhow, the Bill seeks to correct the rather rigid provisions by allowing the Commissioners more discretion and by obliging them to take account of local ties and of the inconveniences attendant on alterations to constituencies. It excludes consideration of such inconveniences if the alterations arise from the application of Rule 4, so that the English and Welsh Commissions will still have to have regard, so far as practicable, to changes of boundaries of counties and county districts and county and metropolitan boroughs in England and Wales.

Mr. Mitchison: I agree that that is what the Rule said. However, the Boundary Commissions paid a religious regard to county boundaries, but did not pay such regard to any other local government boundaries.

Mr. Macpherson: That stems to some extent from the way in which the English Commission operated in apportioning, or breaking down, its quota. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Commissioners paid a religious regard to county boundaries. In fact, as he himself said, they combined certain counties, or rather continued to combine them, as is specified in paragraph 15 of the Report. In any case the general effect of the Clause is to give more attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton aptly described as local organic units.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East referred to the discretion which the Commissions should be given, and he dealt in particular with the relationship between borough and county. I am bound to remind him of what his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said on a previous occasion when speaking for the Government of the day. He said:
…the Government accept the view that there is a reason for giving a county division some advantage in numbers.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 3025.]
He later said that it was a question of degree.

Mr. Ede: I was using the English word "some" and not the American "some".

Mr. Macpherson: I accept that. One is bound to interpret words in the normal way.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. Member will remember that in the course of the 1954 debates my right hon. Friend spoke very strongly against the big discrepancy between county seats and town seats.

Mr. Macpherson: Yes. I said that it was a question of degree, as to whether it should have been nearly 2,000 as it was at that time, or 6,000 as it might have become, or 4,000 as it did in fact become.
Much attention has been paid to the question of interim adjustments. I want to make it quite clear that the Bill does not alter the power of the Boundary Commissions under Section 2 (3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, to recommend adjustments of the boundaries of individual constituencies in order to conform with changes in local government boundaries. Many alterations in local government boundaries will be of a comparatively minor character, and any subsequent revision of constituency boundaries of that sort would hardly be drastic.
As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, this is a general power, and my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that nothing he said detracts from or adds to that power, or makes it more or less likely that the Commission will recommend a change in any particular constituency. I hope that that will be satisfactory to the House. In those circumstances, I suggest that the provision in the 1949 Act will be adequate to deal with the situation until the next general review of constituency boundaries.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Member leaves that point, how does the Commission decide to function under Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act? Who moves it?

Mr. Macpherson: I was coming to that. I was about to say that it is a matter for the Commissioners themselves to decide whether in their view particular changes in circumstances, including population, warrant recommendations for an alteration in constituency boundaries. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Commissioners have the power to make recommendations if they think fit, and the words of Section 2 (3) of the Act are:
…in order to give effect to the rules set out in the said Second Schedule

Mr. Parker: Does that mean that an extra Member may be given without taking away from any other area? That is the important point.

Mr. Macpherson: It must be clear to the House, and I think that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East himself appreciated, that it is impossible for anybody at this Box to give an authoritative interpretation of an Act and to say exactly what can be done and what cannot be done. This is a matter for the Boundary Commissions themselves to interpret.
Between 1949 and 1953 there were no fewer than 27 Statutory Instruments for England to give effect to recommendations of the Boundary Commission under this subsection and there was one for Wales which covered five constituencies. That in essence is the answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). The point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Lagden) was how the Commissions could take cognisance of any changes.
The House will be aware that each Commission has the Director-General of Ordnance Survey and the Registrar-General for the appropriate part of the country serving on it as assessors. The fact that they are assessors enables them to bring to the attention of the Commission changes occurring in population or boundaries, or whatever it might be, in different parts of the country, while not actually taking part in the decisions which may be made.

Mr. Pickthorn: My hon. Friend will admit that they are what might almost be called arithmocrats. They are people necessarily thinking in terms of the number of people and of the number of acres.

Mr. Macpherson: That is precisely why we are making them assessors instead of members of the Commissions.

Mr. Lagden: Can we take it that the remarks of my right hon. Friend to the effect that the debate would go before the Boundary Commissioners means that the debate will also be read by the assessors, so that the assessors will know what the feeling of the House was and

will be more readily able to advise the Boundary Commissions?

Mr. Macpherson: I am certain that the assessors will feel it part of their task to read the report of the debate.

Mr. Ede: I understand that the constituency of Hornchurch consists of the Hornchurch urban district and no other area. It now has an electorate of 88,000, a figure which is growing with considerable rapidity. At the last review, the two rules which the Commissioners adamantly observed—rules which they themselves made—were that no constituency in England was to be more than 80,000 and none was to be less than 40,000.
It would be quite within the powers to recommend an alteration which divided the Hornchurch urban district into two, and it ought to be possible to arrange that neither fell below 40,000 population. If the Commissioners made such a recommendation, would the Government regard that as going beyond their powers in Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act?
My second question is rather more difficult. Let us assume that the Commissioners did not meet and that this anomaly grew. Would it be regarded by the Government as beyond their competence, possibly after making recommendations and taking soundings from other political parties so that there would be no suggestion of any party manœuvre, to draw the attention of the Commissioners to the fact that the anomaly existed?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that I can answer these hypothetical questions. The right hon. Gentleman first asked whether the Government would take certain action if the Commission made a certain recommendation.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ederose—

Mr. Macpherson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. He has made the points that he wishes to make very clearly. I have already said that it is not for somebody standing at this Box to suggest how the Commissions should interpret their duties. That is for the Commissions to do, and they have to make their recommendations to the respective Secretaries of State. I hope that the right hon.
Gentleman will allow me to continue with my speech.
In passing, I would inform the hon. Member for Dagenham that the Bill makes no difference to the power of the Boundary Commissioners to alter constituencies so as to conform with local government boundaries, and no doubt the new Boundary Commission will look at all the cases to which he has referred.
I want now to turn to the question of inquiries. It was definitely felt that not enough inquiries were instituted by the English Commissioners. I fully agree with everything that has been said as to the desirability of more inquiries. The Bill provides that inquiries must be held in the circumstances laid down. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has urged very strongly that the English Commission should give its reasons for any decisions that it makes in the same way as the other Commissions have done, and I have no doubt that the English Commission will note what he has said.
I now come to the rather difficult question of the separate electoral quotas for the different countries. Given the requirement of Rule 1, that the Scottish and Welsh constituencies should not be less than a certain number, and the consequential fact that the averages for Scottish and Welsh constituencies are below the Great Britain average, it was difficult—I say no more—for the English Commission to do otherwise than start by allocating seats to each county on the basis of the average in English constituencies. The aim of the Commissions is to produce, as far as possible, the same number of constituencies as at the outset. Rule 1 lays down that the number of constituencies should not be substantially greater or less than 613. It is not a question whether a variation of thirteen constitutes a substantial variation from the total of 613 for Britain and a variation of five does not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South was quite right in his observations about the mathematics of this matter. Every time we reach a new average for England we automatically lower the combined average. so that in the end we shall always be moving towards complete equality as be-

tween constituencies throughout the country. Surely that is not what was intended.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made this point quite well; indeed, his constituency is one of the best examples. The four most northerly constituencies in the United Kingdom, taken together, have an average electorate of 26,273, and this average brings down the average for Great Britain as a whole. I would ask the House whether it is reasonable that simply because of the special circumstances applying to those and similar constituencies the average size of electorates in England should be lower. The House must recognise that if certain peripheral constituencies are to be treated as organic units, with separate problems, they must be treated differently from the rest of the constituencies in the Kingdom.

Mr. A. Woodburn: At the Speaker's Conference which originally considered this matter it was felt that the huge areas in Northern Ireland and Scotland could not be treated as normal constituencies. It should be put on record that that is an exceptional circumstance, which the hon. Gentleman has said reduces the average.

Mr. Macpherson: That is so. The average number of electors in Northern Ireland constituencies is 72,832. That is not covered by Rule 1.
I now want to refer to one or two points which have been made about the composition of the Commissions. I emphatically agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and others have said about the importance of the Commissions being—and being known to be—not only impartial but also completely fair. The Scottish Commission won universal approval, including that of the right hon. Member for South Shields and its deputy chairman, nominated by Mr. Speaker, was a judge of the Court of Session. That is considered to be a useful pattern to follow.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East both felt that there was some doubt whether Mr. Speaker was the right choice as chairman. I noticed that throughout his


speech the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East was referring to "the Commission." But there are four Commissions. Mr. Speaker is the unifying influence between those four Commissions, because he is Chairman of them all. Curiously enough, the hon. and learned Gentleman went straight on to refer to letters written to Mr. Speaker about the Commissions seeing chief or national officers of parties. Surely it is much easier to communicate with one person—Mr. Speaker—in a matter of that kind. The fact that Mr. Speaker is chairman of all the Commissions, combined with the unique position which he enjoys in this House, has commended itself to the Government, and I feel certain that it would riot be the wish of the House that Mr. Speaker should be replaced as chairman of the Commissions. I do not think there has been any question about how the other Members should be appointed, and the House has accepted tacitly, if in no other way, the mode in which it is proposed to continue to appoint them.
These provisions are designed to ensure that the Commissions will not only be but will be seen to be, impartial; so that even though one party or another considers that the reports of the Commissions are not in its favour, it will recognise that they are inspired by the will to conform with the law and to be fair. In that way this small Measure will help to sustain confidence not only of our own people but of the civilised world in British democratic institutions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Finlay.]

Committee Tomorrow.

COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The important purpose of the Bill, as the House is aware, is described in the Explanatory Memorandum as being
…to provide for the vesting in the Trustees of the Imperial Institute of a new site for the Institute, and for the erection by them of a new building.
The legislation under which the Imperial Institute is at present administered, that is to say the Act of 1925, confines the Institute to the buildings it at present occupies and it cannot be moved without amending legislation. The need to move the Institute derives from the decision of the Government that the Imperial College of Science and Technology should be developed on the South Kensington site to enable its student numbers to be raised from 1,650 to 3,000 and that the College should have first claim on other parts of the site as it becomes possible to release them from their present use. I hope the House will forgive me if I say a little more about this decision. I know that there are some people—I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) may be one —who are doubtful that public money should be spent in this way at all.
The original decision to expand the Imperial College of Science and Technology over the greater part of what one might term the South Kensington rectangle was announced in the House of Commons on 29th January, 1953. The decision to move the Institute was not taken until three years later and was announced by the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in another place on 25th January, 1956. From the point of view of the Imperial Institute itself it is obviously highly advantageous to secure new premises specially designed for its functions on a new site. There has been a certain amount of disagreement about the architectural merits of the Collcutt Building. It is not my function—I should


not be so adventurous—to go into the subject tonight, but one must agree that the building is singularly ill-adapted for any current purpose. This point has been made in debates in another place.
The present dual occupation of what is generally known as the Imperial Institute dates from the end of last century when the Institute found itself in financial difficulties and was rescued by the Government who in 1899 took over the lease and discharged a substantial mortgage and floating debt, handing over to the London University those parts of the building which have been occupied by the University ever since. The decision to move the Institute taken two years ago by the Government meant, first, that a suitable new site had to be found and secured and, secondly, that a decision had to be reached about the size of the new building to be provided and how it should be financed.
After a very thorough search the Government were fortunate to find approximately three-and-a-quarter acres in Holland Park which they were able to lease from the owners, the Ilchester Estate, for a capital payment of £215,000 and an annual rental of £10. The negotiations were conducted by the Ministry of Works, in whose name the lease now stands. I need hardly assure the House that the Governors were consulted throughout the negotiations leading to a decision about the new site. They were strongly in favour of the site selected and this decision was endorsed by the trustees.
It was decided to provide the Institute with a building offering approximately equivalent space to that now available to it—that is to say, 102,000 square feet net and about 125,000 square feet gross. The Government believe that in this way proper compensation will be provided for the trustees and that the Institute should be able to use a well-designed and specifically planned new building to much better advantage than the old. The site and building will be provided at the expense of the Exchequer.
With some minor exceptions which I will mention, the Bill does not amend the Imperial Institute Act, 1925, in respect of the general pattern of responsibility for governing and managing the Institute. This pattern is a little compli-

cated and it might perhaps be to the advantage of the House of I briefly outline the present pattern of government.
First, there is a body of trustees, some Ministers and some not, in whom is vested the building used by the Institute. Normally the trustees have no duties to perform except officially to safeguard the premises. Secondly, there is a responsible Minister, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education, who carries ultimate responsibility for the management of the Institute and who, with Parliament's approval, provides such moneys as are necessary to supplement the Institute's other sources of revenue. Thirdly, there is a body of Governors, some appointed by the Minister, some by the self-governing Commonwealth countries and some co-opted, to whom the responsibilities of management are mainly devolved. The Institute has a full-time director, whom my right hon. Friend appoints, and the rest of the staff are appointed by the director on behalf of the Governors.
The Bill proposes only two simple constitutional changes. The first is in the composition of the trustees, where the Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies replace the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council and the President of the Board of Trade. The second change is in the method of appointment of the private trustees. The present requirement for prior consultation with the Governor of the Bank of England and the President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce is being dropped.
Perhaps I should say a word about the change of title to the Commonwealth Institute, because there has been some comment about this in the Press. This change was strongly recommended by the Governors and it has been agreed to in principle by all those Commonwealth Governments who have replied to the approach made to them. The Commonwealth is today the normally accepted title for what we used to think of as the Dominions and the Territories of the Empire which are not yet self-governing, and I cannot see that this change of title can be regarded in any way as controversial.
The Bill includes a provision in Clause 5 which I think the House will consider


useful because it enables objects to be disposed of or lent. The financial Clause, Clause 6, implies a small alteration of procedure for the running expenses because at present the Ministry of Works in accordance with the agreement of 1899, pays the ground rent to the 1851 Commissioners and also meets the cost of rates and external maintenance. That is a matter of detail which we can consider later if the House wishes.
The Bill in no way alters the purposes of the Institute which are defined in the Order in Council of 1949, nor does it alter the composition or method of appointment of the governing body. It brings up to date, I think the House will agree rightly, the list of self-governing countries of the Commonwealth who have to be consulted before any changes in this regard are made by Order in Council. After the Bill becomes law we can consider making an Order in Council under the procedure of Section 8 of the 1925 Act to give any new member Government acceding to the Commonwealth the right to appoint members of the governing body.
Clause 3 enables the Minister to require the trustees to surrender parts of the present building. Here, perhaps, I might say something about the continuity of the Institute's activities pending the completion of the new building. Plans are already well advanced for certain readjustments of the Institute's present accommodation, so that the Eastern Galleries can be surrendered as soon as the Bill is passed. These arrangements have been worked out, so far as we are able, in close co-operation with the Imperial College authorities and need not, we believe, seriously affect the scale of the Institute's activities. Certainly, we will make a promise of every effort to reduce any subsequent disturbance. I hope the House will not press me too hard in this regard because we have, to some extent, to plan as we go along.
To enable progress on the new buildings to be made without delay the trustees have already selected the architects whom they will formally appoint when the new legislation gives them power to do so. The firm which has been invited to undertake the work, Robert Matthew and Johnson-Marshall, were selected by the trustees on the recommendation of the

Governors from a number of firms who applied to be considered or had expressed their desire to undertake the job when approached.
On the question of costs, the cost allowed for the building has been fixed at a figure which, we think, should allow for imaginative planning and good quality finishes, but will, nonetheless, offer, as any new project should, a challenge to economy in design and construction.
I believe that the work done by the Institute is of considerable value. It is possibly of rather wider scope than many hon. Members imagine. I am told that in the Exhibition Galleries the total annual attendance today is about half a million. Special arrangements can be made for parties of organised visits of teachers with school children. I am told there were about 1,500 parties in 1957, totalling about 42,600 teachers and children.
There have been a number of special exhibitions, mainly of Commonwealth art, but other subjects of contemporary interest are included. There are three cinema performances daily of Commonwealth documentary films. Leaflets, maps, film-strips and study kits are provided both for the public and for school use. A number of travelling exhibitions circulate throughout the United Kingdom, with the help of the Central Office of Information. Then there is a lecture service for schools. Lectures are provided, on payment, mainly for schools but also for adult groups. The Institute has a panel of 80 lecturers, while a total of about 7.000 lectures to audiences of about 700,000 in all was given in 1957.
There were 36 conferences for sixth-form pupils, teachers and training-college students organised in various provincial centres last year. Finally, there is the Commonwealth Students Club, a comparatively small-scale activity, founded in 1954. Its membership is now about 300 and it forms a useful supplement to the activities of the British Council, the Colonial Office and Commonwealth Governments in London. It can be a useful meeting place. No doubt the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) will remember the very happy occasion during the height of the heat wave last summer when I had the opportunity of speaking there, in company with much more distinguished people, to teachers who were going out to Canada.
Perhaps the House will permit a personal note. I have a personal interest in the Institute because I was born within sight of it, and the towers of the Institute are one of my earliest childhood memories. Commonwealth Governments have of course been kept in full touch with the Government's proposals for the Institute, and it is hoped that in future they will contribute their share by helping to complete the modernisation of the exhibitions when the Institute is able to move to its new premises.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I think that most of us have some feeling of regret that the building with which we are so familiar in South Kensington will very soon disappear, with the exception of the famous tower. For that reason, one is inclined to regret the necessity for this Bill. On the other hand, we welcome, first, the change in the name of the Institute and secondly, the fact that a more satisfactory building will be forthcoming for the Commonwealth Institute, and that there will also be better accommodation for the Royal College of Science and Technology.
I sometimes think it unfortunate that only on rare occasions do we in this House give any attention at all to London's poverty of buildings concerned with Commonwealth ideals and purposes. One therefore hopes that the new building to be put up on the site in High Street, Kensington, will he completely worthy as a Commonwealth centre, will, to some extent, illustrate the contribution that Britain has made in transforming an Empire into the Commonwealth, and will express all those purposes for which that Commonwealth stands.
We have waited quite a long time, for instance, for the new Colonial Office to flourish on the site opposite Westminster Abbey. When we originally discussed the shape of that office, we were very anxious that it should be a genuine Commonwealth centre in which the British Government could act as host to Commonwealth visitors. We thought of it as a centre where people from the dependent territories could receive a welcome, and a place to house the library and all the rest of it, and have just those amenities that are at present altogether absent from a London that prides itself on being an important Commonwealth centre. I

therefore hope that the new building will not only provide for exhibitions and lectures, but will also have the facilities for providing just those Commonwealth amenities that are, as I say, absent from London today.
In passing, I should like to refer to the destruction of the present building. I hope that the Queen's Tower of the Collcutt Building will be preserved in such a way that it will not be incongruous in the new building that is to be erected for the Royal College of Science and Technology. I felt that it was a piece of vandalism to suggest that that rather beautiful campanile should be destroyed, and I was more than pleased when public agitation persuaded the Government that this rather striking tower, so familiar to Londoners, should be preserved in the new building. I think it would have been something of a reproach in this scientific age if a building of some æaesthetic quality were to be ruthlessly destroyed merely in the interests of scientific teaching.
There are only a few things I want to say about the Bill, because we welcome the provision that is made in it for the Institute itself. I am one of those who believe that the Imperial Institute has done and is doing excellent work, though it is odd to recall that the Institute was founded in the heyday of British imperialism. It was not, of course, founded by governments; it was founded by private subscription. It is also of great interest to recall that many developments in our own imperial history and in our own colonial work have occurred as a result of private initiative and private money rather than Government initiative and Government money.
That was the case here, and in 1899, like Uganda, this Institute was the unwanted baby put on the doorstep of the Government, and it has since that time suffered various vicissitudes in regard to its purpose and control. As we know, there have been a number of inquiries as to how its purpose could be better defined. I think that now, as a result of the Order of 1949, it has reached more stability so far as its objects are concerned. The scientific work which it did was hived off after the war, and, at that time, was referred to the Colonial Office. Now, there is one responsible Minister—the Minister of Education—and the work of the Institute is primarily concerned with propaganda and educational work.
It is important to note that, although called the Imperial Institute, the Institute has not concerned itself with pressing on the public the rather blatant form of imperialism. I think it has worked to increase our understanding of colonial problems, Commonwealth problems, and the rest. It has served a great educational purpose, and has sought to promote good will. I quite agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the scope of the work, how important and how far-reaching is that work, how many people have enjoyed the facilities which the Institute has offered, and how, in so many new directions, particularly in recent years under the direction of Mr. Kenneth Bradley, the value of the Institute has increased.
The fact that it can act as host to Commonwealth visitors, that it can assist in the exhibition of the creative efforts of artists from various parts of the Commonwealth, the fact that it can send on the way these travelling exhibitions, besides holding important exhibitions in its own buildings, reaching school parties and the rest—all these are of the greatest importance.
There are several things I would wish to say in regard to the Institute as it at present works. First, I hope that the importance and value of its work will be recognised more fully, and that it will not be starved of the necessary funds with which to conduct its work efficiently and give greater publicity to its material. It is true that virtually all countries of the Commonwealth subscribe to it, but I hope that the Government will feel that its work is of such importance, much of it being directed to the people of Great Britain, that they will see that the necessary finance is forthcoming.
I make the further suggestion that we should have on the bodies responsible for the government and management of the Institute as lively and as imaginative people as can be got. There is a great tendency for institutions coming under the wing of the Government to put people of the "establishment" to serve on the governing bodies, with the result that little imagination or initiative is shown. I hope, therefore, that people of radical views—non-conformists, not in the religious sense, but people who feel strongly about the value and importance

of the Commonwealth—will find a place on the committees responsible for the government of the Institute.
We welcome the change of name and are glad that it will now be the "Commonwealth Institute." The term "imperialist" is a little old fashioned. It is singular that our own phase of imperialism in this country was very short. We have not been a great imperial people. Although there was, for a short time towards the end of the nineteenth century, some excessive jubilation and jingoism and some extravagant and flamboyant talk about British domination over the years, these old notions about imperialism and imperial power are dead for ever now. It is, therefore, fitting, as the Parliamentary Secretary reminded us, that we should use the name "Commonwealth Institute" rather than retain the old name of "Imperial Institute."
Most of us welcome also the additional provision made in the Bill for the circulation of exhibitions of material not only in this country but to territories overseas also, and the provision that material which is surplus can be sold off or given to the Commonwealth.
We welcome the Bill. The Institute is doing a first-class job in spreading knowledge and understanding and promoting sound race relations, keeping alive in the public mind and the mind of the rising generation the great principles and ideals for which the Commonwealth stands. The Institute is doing an excellent job, and one hopes that it will flourish in the new building and in the new conditions which will come as the result of the working out of the provisions of the Bill.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I also welcome the Bill. I enjoyed a morning at the Institute in the company of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I say at once that, although he suggested in his opening speech that he was the least distinguished speaker that morning, he most certainly was not.
We all welcome the change of name. The word "Empire" is, of course, now completely anachronistic, and a change was long overdue. When I was at school some years ago in a mining village of Northumberland, we had Empire Day. We all voted the best-looking girl in the school to be the queen to sit upon a dais


or platform, like Britannia on the penny, and we sang our songs and marched past on a beautiful sunny day.
Although the old-fashioned idea about the Empire is now gone and although no one can be jingoistic, it would not be bad to think today of Commonwealth Days, with the changed nature of our association with all these dependent peoples. We have now many coloured Dominions—Ghana and the like—which are now on an equal footing with the Anglo-Saxon Dominions of New Zealand and Canada. I think there is a case for having a Commonwealth Day instead of the old-fashioned Empire Day. I put that suggestion in an all-party spirit. At election time and other times, one is amused by the Conservative Party members who have Union Jacks on their election platforms. It is amusing to think that they still claim to have a monopoly of what I might term vision and almost ownership of our Commonwealth territories overseas. The Attlee Government of 1945–50 changed all this, in Asia particularly, and we also can put our Union Jacks on our platforms and rejoice in a Commonwealth Day like hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I now come to the question of teaching in the schools. There needs to be a much bigger push. The Ministry, perhaps, can put out a circular to teachers teaching Commonwealth affairs in schools. I have just been to America and I was staggered at the ignorance I found there among the English-speaking peoples of the new world of North America, apart from the ignorance to be found in our own schools and society. It is as bad, of course, with our overseas connections, not merely in North America, but in Australasia and Africa. This year for the first time a sixth-form party has gone to, I think, Ghana, as distinct from those which in the past have gone to Scandinavia and the continent of Europe.

Sir E. Boyle: I myself took that very party over the House of Commons and they had an extremely good time.

Mr. Johnson: We should welcome many more of these tours, particularly to West Africa and the new coloured Dominions, although I know that expense is a problem. However, the start which has been made is encouraging.
If one looks at the Annual Report of the Institute from page 22 onwards, one is heartened to find the work done by Mr. Kenneth Bradley and his enthusiastic staff. I was particularly intrigued by a course in North Devon where the subject chosen was the Commonwealth in Africa. A number of North Devon schools, some six or eight, covered Africa in this way. One is equally pleased by the number of lectures, courses and other activities in the schools conducted by the staff. Let us encourage this.
I hope that the Minister will not in any way feel parsimonious about this matter and will give the Institute as much financial help as is possible. Education such as this is most important. Today far too many people, both in and out of school, particularly in the Commonwealth and indeed in America, are plagued about the bogy of Communism. I have not been bothered about it so much as has capitalism in other parts. The big issue in the world, as I find it, is this matter of colour and Colonialism, of anti-Imperialism.
I hope that the Minister, by means of an institution such as this, will endeavour to get in the schools as much knowledge, fair-mindedness and fair thinking as he can about our coloured Dominions. The Suez Canal issue has gone. The Bandoeng Conference has gone. The significance of Bandoeng was not political. Bandoeng was the first cultural conference of coloured peoples and it was the first conference where coloured peoples had gone together with no white men, no imperialists such as the Dutch, ourselves or others, to keep them to a time-table, to take the chair and to tell them when to have their discussions. This today is the significance of colonial development overseas.
Any work that the Institute can do among our own schools and our own school population to widen their knowledge of the overseas coloured Dominions will be work well done. I am very happy to see the Bill before the House and I welcome all its provisions.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: This is not a party or partisan Measure, and it should not therefore be dealt with in a party or partisan manner. I hope that the few observations of a critical


character which I have to make will not be regarded as being made in other than a constructive spirit.
I want to mention some anomalies arising from the Bill and in the Minister's speech and the circumstances in which the Bill comes before us. For certain parts of the Bill, the Minister did not make a good case, while there are other parts that speak for themselves and for which he made a good case. I refer particularly to the economics of the situation. In 1954–55, the total income of the Institute from all sources was £77,439, while the total outlay was £75,372. The House will thus see that the margin was very small indeed for any organisation, and particularly small for a public institution.
In the year 1955–56, the total income from all sources was £83,206, while the total outlay was £82,570. The margin was still small. It was only £635 19s. 10d. for the year. I am quite sure the House will agree that that is a very small margin for any public institution and justifies our taking into account the figures in considering the future of the Institute.
The Government deal with that situation by bringing in this little Bill, which seeks to discard the Institute's present house, which cost £354,000 to build and which has been found useful for many years. But that is not the end of the story. The Government propose to build a new house that will cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds and will be particularly expensive at the present time, having regard to the high cost of materials and labour.
The Institute urgently needs more money, as the figures which I have indicated show. It needs more money to carry out the excellent work that it has carried out up to the present. I am not saying one word of a critical character of the work carried out by the Institute. It has been doing very good work, but it does not have enough money to continue it. Still less has it sufficient money to expand.
A heavy burden rests upon the Minister to justify the provisions of the Bill. It has five main objects. The first is to alter the name of the Institute. That is good, and it accords with the times in which we live, because although we still

have a dependent Empire, it is diminishing as the Commonwealth grows, and "Commonwealth" is a much more appropriate word for the title of the Institute. Secondly, the Bill proposes to change the membership of the trustees. That speaks for itself, and on that point at least the Minister has made his case. The membership of the trustees is to be brought more into accord with the times in which we live.
Thirdly, the Bill proposes that the Institute be moved from a seven-acre site to a three-and-a-quarter acre site, and that is a very questionable proposal. The Minister has said that the Institute needs expansion. If it does, why pull down the house in which it now lives? Why not extend it over some of the seven acres which are available to it? This proposal to discard the present house while there are acres over which it could expand is more than questionable. It is proposed to discard this fine building which cost £354,000 and to build another one at the present expensive building rates. That is a very improvident proposal. The Minister will be hard put to it to justify it in this day and generation. Indeed, he has not attempted to justify it. His speech gave no adequate reasons in justification.
In answering these questions, we must consider the aims of the Institute, whether they have been carried out, what must be done to carry them out, whether they cannot be carried out effectively in the present building, and whether Treasury money should be spent in this way when there is open to the Institute the possibility of continuing to use the building which has been so effective up to the present and to extend it over the available seven acres. I know that the main purpose of the Bill is expressed as to improve the usefulness of the Imperial Institute to the Empire and Commonwealth. I am in complete agreement with that purpose. I am all for giving information and instruction about the Empire and Commonwealth. The Institute has been doing this, and doing it well, in the present building. Therefore, in my submission, a case has not been made out for the Bill in that respect.
Let us look at what the purposes are, how far they have been implemented, what obstacles have been met, how they have been dealt with, whether they have


been overcome, in what way the Bill will assist these purposes in the future, and whether the Measure is really necessary. The Minister has not made out a case for the Bill. I should not be at all surprised if a case could be made out for it, but the House is entitled to have that case made out here and now.
The purposes of the Institute are set out clearly under four heads. The main one is to promote the educational, commercial and industrial interests of the Commonwealth. The other three are subsidiary. They may be set out in general terms as spreading relevant information, co-operate with other relevant organisations and doing whatever else is necessary. These purposes have been carried out very well by the Institute up to the present.
Addison, the essayist, said that when he was a boy his father and mother had a large family Bible. At the foot of each of its pages there was the note, "Foregoing text: Doubts raised and answered." He said that the doubts were always effectively raised in his young mind but the answers were not always persuasive. The Minister's speech, coupled with the Bill, has raised more doubts than it has solved. I for one am not persuaded by his speech, and by reading the Bill, that a case has been made out.
For the Institute, it can be said that its purposes are high, its performances are efficient, its administration is excellent, but all in the existing house, all in the existing premises. Why, therefore, change? Why discard the existing expensive house, which cost over £354,000 to build, and build a new one when there are seven acres over which to expand?
Against the Institute, it can be said that its name is out of date. I am with the Minister on that point, and the Bill is good because it makes the requisite change. Further, it can be said that the accommodation is inadequate. That has not been proved. The Minister has not taken us room by room through the building to show how inadequate it is. He has made no effort to show that it is inadequate for the various purposes for which it was designed, and no case has been adduced to show that it is inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, before you came into the Chamber I urged that a heavy burden

rests upon the Minister to justify large expenditure of this kind. A very heavy burden rests upon the hon. Gentleman to show why the present expensive house, which has been used satisfactorily for so many years for these excellent purposes, should be discarded and why a new one should be built. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will answer some of the questions I have asked before the House is invited to give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: My sole reason in rising to speak briefly is that, despite what the Minister said, I was born closer to the Institute than he was. In fact, I have lived within yards of the Institute all my life, and geometrically midway between the Institute and the site of Holland House, where the new Institute will be built.
I was not impressed by what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). Whenever I have tried to intervene in a debate concerning Scottish matters, I have noticed a certain reluctance to listen on the part of Scottish Members. I can only say, having heard the hon. and learned Gentleman this evening, that I am surprised he has intervened in this London matter, because it is clear from what he said that he does not know the Institute.
It was built at the worst period of English architecture. I refer not to the quality of building but to the design. Although I know that the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) are supported by many people, with all respect I do not think the tower has any beauty and I would happily see it come down. It is a Victorian monstrosity, and the sooner something better is put in its place, the better. If the Government have given way to pressure or propaganda on this point, I am sorry, and I hope they will think again.
The Institute was built on a large number of acres at a time when land was easily available. The rooms are too large and I imagine they are difficult to heat and keep clean. Except that I shall see the passing of an old friend, one I have known all my life, I shall not be sorry to see that Victorian building come down. If a better building can be erected


on a smaller acreage, so much the better, and if in doing so we encourage the teaching of science, which is so necessary these days, in the new building, so much the better. If I may say so, we are killing two very good birds with one stone, the one stone being the Bill.
I regret the passing of the name. I see nothing wrong in talking about the "Imperial Institute," the British Empire" or the "imperial heritage". I am not in the least ashamed to talk about those things. In fact, I am proud of them. I look upon those people who talk about anti-imperialism—not in this country but in other countries—as being excitable people who get slogans into their heads without knowing in the least what they mean. If it is in the fashion of modern trends to call a rose by any other name, let it be so; I shall not object in any way.
I rose only to pay this public tribute on the passing of an old friend. I could not let it go, knowing it very well, and living so close to it, without saying a few words. I have said those few words, and I will now resume my seat.

9.21 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: By leave of the House, I want very briefly to respond to some of the points raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) welcomed the Bill in a very agreeable speech and raised three matters to which I want to reply. He first raised the question of the future of the Collcutt Tower. The Government have studied a report on the stability of the Collcutt Tower as a free-standing campanile. This shows that it will be technically possible to keep the tower, and it has therefore been decided that the planning of the rectangle site in South Kensington should proceed on the assumption that the tower is to be retained. I do not want to become involved in the aesthetic dispute, because inevitably we do not all have the same tastes.
The right hon. Gentleman hoped that we would have a lively and imaginative Board of Governors, not all necessarily drawn from the "establishment". I have no quarrel with that remark, which was perfectly fair.
He hoped that the Institute would not be starved of funds. I have the figures which show that in the last four financial years, starting with 1954–55 and ending with 1957–58, the Ministry of Education in grants-in-aid provided respectively £8,000, £ 16,000, £24,000 and £30,000, so that in real terms there has been an increase in the last four years.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) made what might be called a slightly intemperate speech in places. The need to move the Institute, to which he took strong exception, derives from the Government's decision that the Imperial College of Science and Technology should be developed on the South Kensington site, and after a very careful examination of the requirements of the College and those of the Institute the Government concluded that the College could not expand as intended unless the Institute were moved elsewhere. I ask him to accept that assurance and obviously at this hour of the night we need not go through a room by room examination of what is provided in the Institute.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) hoped that schools would not neglect Commonwealth Day. There is a Question on the Order Paper about this and I must be careful to keep in order. By circular letter to local education authorities my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has drawn attention to the fact that the Commonwealth is suitably celebrated on 24th May. My right hon. Friend has also drawn attention to United Nations Day and he will continue annually to draw the attention of authorities by circular letter to this matter. I fully agree with what the hon. Member for Rugby said in his interesting speech and I entirely agree with him about the very great importance of knowledge in our schools about the realities of the Commonwealth today.
Perhaps with those words the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole —
[Colonel J.H. Harrison.]

Committee Tomorrow.

COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE [MONEY]

considered in Committee under Standing Order No.84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's reconmmendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the Imperial Institute, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any expenses incurred by the Trustees of the Commonwealth Institute, being expenses which under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session are to be defrayed by the Minister of Education; and
(ii) of any expenses incurred by the said Minister in connection with the Commonwealth Institute,

except in so far as any such expenses are defrayed out of the income of the Endowment Fund maintained by the said Trustees or out of sums received by the said Minister for the purposes of the Commonwealth Institute or otherwise in the exercise of his powers and duties under the Imperial Institute Act, 1925:
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the said Minister in consequence of an exercise of the powers conferred on him by the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

RECREATIONAL CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.25 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I have to inform the House that I have it in Command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places her prerogative and interests, so far as concerns the matters dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.

Mr. Renton: The primary purpose of the Bill is to remove doubts which have arisen about the legal status of a wide variety of voluntary organisations which, until recently, have always been regarded as charities. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, until the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Baddeley was determined by the House of Lords in 1955, many such trusts and institutions were commonly regarded as charitable, but as a result of that decision doubts have arisen about their position.
The Government have felt that it could not be right and, indeed, could not have been intended by their Lordships, that this wide range of public activities should be excluded from the charitable field. The immediate practical effect of such exclusion would be that relief from Income Tax, which Parliament has seen fit to accord to all institutions recognised as charitable in law, would be withdrawn—and the effect upon the finances of many of these institutions might well be crippling.
The Government White Paper on Policy on Charitable Trusts, issued in 1955, declared the intention of the Government not to enact a new definition of charity but to preserve the existing case law. Both the Nathan Committee on Charitable Trusts in 1952 and the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income recommended against any extension of the field of charity. Our policy, therefore, is not to enlarge the definition of charity or to make new classes of trusts charitable, or to admit to the field the particular type of trust


which was rejected by the House of Lords in the Baddeley case. Our policy is to distinguish from that type of trust those which have in the past been regarded as charitable and ought to be restored unequivocally to that position.
It has therefore been necessary—and it has been a very difficult task—to find a legislative formula which would clarify the position without upsetting the decisions of the courts, including that in the Baddeley case, and without also impairing the organic structure of the law of charity. The search for the formula has therefore been prolonged. I can assure the House that many possible alternatives have been considered. The alternative embodied in the Bill, although it looks simple, is delicately balanced and is designed to avoid a number of pitfalls not immediately apparent. It represents the most satisfactory solution with the least possible modification of the existing law. We have been in consultation with the National Council of Social Service, and I understand that the Council is in general agreement with the solution which we have put forward.
There is one thing that I must stress before explaining the Bill to the House. The question whether a particular trust will be charitable under the Bill can only be decided by a court when construing a particular trust instrument.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Mr. Ronald Williams (Wigan) indicated assent

Mr. Renton: I see that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), who has some experience in these matters, nods his head. I am glad he has indicated his assent, because it is a fundamental matter and it will be impossible for us to approach this subject properly unless we all understand one thing, that Ministers cannot give a binding pronouncement on that.
The general intention of the Bill is clear enough. In Clause 1 (1), which is the main operative provision of the Bill —the remaining subsections of the Clause are explanatory—we say that
…"it shall be and be deemed always to have been charitable to provide…facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation, if…provided in the interests of social welfare.

We add that the test of public benefit must be satisfied in the future as it always had to be in the past.
We have chosen the phrase "social welfare" as a criterion not only because it is appropriate to the charitable trusts which we intend to cover, but also because it has been used in several Statutes in recent years and has been judicially interpreted. But to attempt a rigid and exhaustive definition of social welfare would be quite impossible, and in any event it is not necessary. In Clause 1 (2), we say that there cannot be social welfare unless the facilities provided improve the conditions of life for the persons for whom they are intended and either those persons need facilities because of their youth, age, infirmity or disablement, or from poverty or social and economic circumstances; or—and this is the other possibility which can arise—the facilities are made available to
members or female members of the public at large.
There, paraphrased, is the formula. I shall have to say something more about the phrases used so that it may be clearly understood.
In Clause 1 (1), we find the words,
…assist in the provision of facilities.
Those words are intended to include national bodies, such as the National Council of Social Service, which centrally do not themselves provide facilities but make grants to or are the organising and administrative machine for those who provide facilities. The word "facilities" is intended to be widely construed and is further explained in subsection (3). Certain recreational facilities for public recreation grounds, public parks and so on have always been treated as charitable.
It is now made clear in the Bill that provision not only for out-door games and amusements, but also for the sort of recreational facilities ordinarily provided in village halls, community centres and Women's Institutes are charitable. Those illustrations are in no way intended to be limiting, nor are they intended to give any preferential status to the institutions mentioned in the Bill above the many others which come within the principle of the Bill but which are not mentioned. As I say, the object of the Bill is to provide a principle capable of wide interpretation and flexible application. That


object would be defeated if the illustrations which are provided for guidance were expanded into a catalogue.
Clause 1 (3) also explains that not only is the provision and maintenance of grounds and buildings for the declared purposes to be charitable, but also the provision of facilities by the organising of activities where the organisers may not provide any physical facilities at all. I wonder whether I may give an almost ludicrous example in order to illustrate the point, because it illustrates it vividly. It is the case of a children's outing to the seaside. A charitable trust may be organised to provide a children's outing to the seaside, but the trust does not provide any facilities. It certainly does not provide the seaside or the sea. It is merely an organisation for organising a particular event. It has no physical facilities to provide but nevertheless it may be a charitable trust.
The words "or leisure-time occupation" are intended to make it clear that the Bill applies to recreation in the widest sense and covers, for example, social intercourse, reading, games, physical training or, as was mentioned in another place, just sitting and thinking in old people's clubs. It will, I think, be clear from the reference to village halls and Women's Institutes in subsection (3) that the inhabitants of a locality may be regarded as a sufficient class of the public at large to satisfy the test. "The public at large" is a phrase intended to signify that the facilities are to be open to anyone who cares to make use of them, and are not, for example, to be subject to election to membership or a prohibitive entrance fee.
It will no doubt be asked why the provision of recreational facilities limited to women will satisfy the test of social welfare, while those limited to men only will not, and the answer is that recreational institutes and clubs confined to men of full age have been treated in the past as not being charitable; and we do not think that should be altered now. On the other hand, women have seldom been in a position to provide these facilities for themselves, and we consider that the charitable status hitherto enjoyed by Women's Institutes and the like should be preserved.
I pass from the facilities provided for the public at large to those for the classes

enumerated in Clause 1 (2, b i). It has long been established that the poor, the sick, the aged, the young and the infirm are proper objects of charity, and comparatively small classes of these suffice to establish an element of public benefit. With those types or classes of people we have included in the Bill that class of person who is in need by reason of what we call his "social and economic circumstances." That phrase is intended to cover such cases as may arise from time to time of people, including a class restricted to men, who though not depressed by poverty often find themselves cut off from their home life and social environment and are not in a position to provide themselves with adquate facilities for spending their leisure. A Mission to Seamen is an obvious example. A man finds himself in a strange port, far from home and with not much money for entertainment. He can find a decent place to spend an evening, perhaps a night, with a meal, companionship, billiards, television or whatever it may be. Therefore, the Mission to Seamen fulfils a purpose which has long been recognised as charitable.
The Bill is retrospective. Its broad effect is to confirm the charitable status of the institutions whose status is in doubt.
I must briefly trouble the House with the effect of the Income Tax provisions. Clause 3 (4) contains provisions about Income Tax. Trusts and institutions which the Bill makes wholly charitable will be entitled, in the period after the Bill becomes law, to the Income Tax relief which is due to charities if such trusts or institutions would have been treated by the Inland Revenue as entitled to tax relief under the practice applied by them immediately before 18th December, 1952, which was the date of the judgment of the court of first instance in the Baddeley case, the date when everyone was put on inquiry. They are given the right to claim such relief for 1946–47 and later years, unless that relief has been given already.
Subsection (5) makes parallel provision about the lower rates of stamp duty which charities pay on conveyances, transfers and leases. Care has been taken in drafting the retrospective application of the Bill to ensure that the unavoidable delay in finding the remedy


for the doubtful situation which arose should not prejudice those who have been affected as regards taxation.
It may be convenient to complete this survey of the retrospective action of the Bill in Clause 3 by mentioning that the general effect of subsections (2) and (3) of that Clause is, broadly, that anything done in the past on the view that the trusts declared by the Bill to be charitable were not charitable, shall remain effective.
Special provision is made in Clause 2 to deal with miners' welfare trusts. About 1,500 of these have been set up over more than 30 years to give effect to the intentions of Parliament declared in the Mining Industry Act of 1920 and the Miners' Welfare Act, 1952. It always has been supposed that these trusts were charitable, but it has not been possible, for technical reasons, to bring the existing trust instruments within the scope of Clause 1. All future trusts will, I understand, conform to the principles of that Clause.
Having had something to do with the miners' welfare trusts when I was at the Ministry of Power, I am glad of the chance of recommending to the House that miners' welfare should be helped in this way by any possible doubt about those trusts being removed, as it is removed in Clause 2.
The Bill, in general, applies only to England and Wales. It is many years since any Government introduced a Measure of this kind. I am told that the last occasion when charitable trusts were discussed at length was probably 1888 when the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act was discussed. Traditionally, the law of charities has been the province of the courts. In putting forward the Bill, we have been anxious to avoid even the appearance of encroaching on the traditional functions of the courts, but we hope that we have succeeded in supplying certainty where there was doubt and in providing a firm foundation on which recreational trusts can be established without fear of invalidity or a sudden loss of tax relief which might otherwise bring them to an untimely end.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I say at once that the Opposition will give the fullest support in its power to the passing

of this very important Bill through all its stages. We will not only support its Second Reading but will support the Government during the Committee stage in any Amendment they may consider necessary to make this an even better Bill. Therefore, in anything that I now have to say, I hope that the Government will appreciate that I am speaking as a supporter of the Bill, and that the Opposition authorise me to speak in those terms. We give this Measure a very warm welcome indeed.
I have, of course, to make certain comments about the details, as there are certain aspects that are extremely difficult because of their technical nature and because of the decision with which we are confronted. We are really attempting, not to overrule Baddeley, but to escape from the consequences of Baddeley where those consequences would flow from the judgments as they appear in the Reports.
We appreciate at once, particularly on this side of the House, that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General and the draftsmen must have had a most formidable and almost terrifying task in trying to solve the problem presented to them. We certainly agree that we in this House should not overrule a decision of the House of Lords, because of the consequences that would flow if we completely altered in effect the basis of the law relating to charity. At the same time we say that we wish to assist the judges by not overruling Baddeley and by making the position clearer.
Have we really succeeded? I sincerely hope that we have. The Joint Under-Secretary is to be heartily commended for the very clear and fair-minded way in which he has presented the Bill to the House, but we must be absolutely clear in our own minds that we are really succeeding in our object. It is very important from our standpoint on the Opposition Benches that we should not give the impression to the country that we are doing more than the Bill, in fact, really provides.
The Bill provides a great deal. It will prevent many thousands of charities from going out of existence. There are many voluntary organisations that have been able to succeed in these difficult days because they have been free from the fiscal burdens which, under the Baddeley decision, would fall upon them. There are


many respects in which many of us feel that there would be grounds for moving with the times in relation to our concepts of charity, and we come very near to moving forward in applying the tests that we are putting in Clause 1. I think that it is the right thing to do, and I think and hope that the judges will be helped in this very technical field, and not hindered by the step that we are now taking.
I would ask the House to look at Clause 2—and perhaps the right hon. And learned Attorney-General may be able to help me here should he reply to the debate. In Clause 2 the Government are doing something that we very heartily applaud. It seems to me that, but for Clause 2, miners' welfare trusts would be in very grave jeopardy, but as has been mentioned by the Under-Secretary, 1,500 of those trusts will be saved from what would be a ruinous impact upon their funds were the provisions of the Income Tax Acts to be applied to them. It is splendid that that should be done. We applaud it, and we support it quite unreservedly and without any question.
I wish to put this point to the Attorney-General. In doing it in this way—and it is a triumph of Parliamentary draftsmanship to have done it at all—we are saying in the Bill that the miners' welfare trusts are not trusts within the meaning of Clause 1, and, therefore, they have to be provided for specially under the provisions of Clause 2. That, of course, raises the question what will happen in future to these trusts—not to the ones already established, for they are clearly admirably provided for and fully covered, but to trusts which come into existence after the passing of this Measure. These trusts will not be covered at all by this Clause.
We all know that they have always been regarded as charitable trusts, and therefore, picked out for special mention here; but, by saying that, we are surely saying that unless some special steps are taken in future to make miners' welfare trusts different from what they were and to bring them within Clause 1 in some way, they cannot be brought within it in future at all. I do not think it is the Government's intention—indeed. I am quite sure that it is not—to imperil the future development of miners' welfare trusts.
I think it is their intention, as it certainly is ours, to say that, as we are saying tonight that these are charitable trusts and always have been, we cannot say it without, by implication saying that trusts in identical form, which will be instituted and established in future, are similarly within that category. Unfortunately, because of a technical drafting difficulty, we are, in effect, saying that for the future they cannot relate their position to Clause 2, but must be brought within Clause 1, or otherwise they will fail as a charity.
By putting the future of miners' welfare trusts into that position we seem to me to be getting ourselves involved in something of a contradiction, and something which the Government would not desire. It may be that the Attorney-General might have seen some other way of establishing future trusts under Clause 1. We are, in effect, saying by Clause 2 that any future trusts under this heading cannot be regarded as charities unless they can be brought within the very flexible and very wide difinition—but, none the less, a definition which excludes the possibility of Clause 2—of Clause 1, because they would not be charities, and that in my submission would be something which the House would not desire.
I must confess quite frankly that the difficulties of drafting an Amendment here seem to me to be virtually insuperable, and it might help the Government if I indicate why the Opposition have come to that conclusion. What would he a very happy solution, of coarse, would be to say, in effect, that here is something which always has been regarded as a charity, which we now affirm is in fact a charity and which, provided it is in the same or a similar form, will for the future be a charity. There the Government would be in the difficulty that they would be obliged to retreat from a fundamental position which they have taken up in the Bill, which is that they do not want to enlarge its scope.
It seems to me that here all of us are in the position that we surely want the future to be safeguarded, and yet we are in a very great technical drafting difficulty. I mention that to indicate to the Attorney-General that I am not taking this point capriciously, or in criticism of the Government, but in order to indicate


that we understand some of the difficulties which the Government are facing here, and that we will do all we can by way of co-operation to try to resolve them.
It has been brought to my notice that one of the results of the Bill will be that certain difficulties will occur in regard to rating. Some local authorities feel that, once we pass a Measure in this form, they will be faced with a drop in revenue and will not be entitled to charge appropriate rates. They have indicated to me that they consider that the matter ought to be dealt with on a wider basis and not in what some of them regard as the piecemeal fashion of the Bill.
The attitude of the Opposition is absolutely clear. We say that we are, in the Bill, clearing up an extremely difficult situation affecting many thousands of voluntary associations in the country, removing what is essentially a fiscal difficulty. Matters of rates, we say, are apart from this. If difficulties arise about rates, they must be solved by amendment of other Acts of Parliament, not by an attempt to do the impossible and include specific positions in this Bill. The good and great things done by the Bill could be imperilled, if not frustrated, if we attempted to do too much. If there are any complications relating to rating, they should be dealt with at another time in some other Measure.
Since a special Committee has been set up by the Government to consider the rating of charities in general, that body will, in due course, over-reach the position at which we have now arrived and will take care of the situation as it then exists. In other words, the Committee considering the question of rating is bound to take into account the fact that the Bill will have been passed and will bear in mind the impact which that will have. We think that it is better to declare, first, what the charities are, and then the Committee looking into the matter can decide what should be done in relation to rates. There is, therefore, no hostility on this side of the House towards what we regard as the real, legal position of local authorities in relation to the rates in respect of these properties and transactions, but that is a matter being taken care of by a Committee which in due course will report.
The suggestion has been made to me, in quite strong terms, that the Bill might exempt from rating bodies which were not regarded as charities even before the Baddeley case. I have studied Clause 1 as carefully as I can, and I recognise that there is room for liberal interpretation by the judges. The courts could say, on the basis of the principles we are now proposing, that something is a charity which, before the Baddeley case, everybody would have said was not. I put that no higher than a possibility, and I do not think that the passage of the Bill should be imperilled by the existence of such a possibility.
After all, we must remember that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, who appeared as amicus curiae in the Baddeley case, himself put forward some of the weightiest arguments I have ever read—they are to be found in pages 581 and 582 of the report—and, in spite of those arguments, the court came to a decision contrary to his submission, although, of course, he received very powerful support in the dissenting opinion of Lord Reid. We must, therefore, remember, when considering what the courts are likely to do, that they are not likely to go out on some extravagant hypothesis and change the basis of the law of charities because we have, as it were, tried to clarify the position in this Bill.
I hope that the Attorney-General will help me on the points that I have mentioned. I have attempted to put them contructively. Even if he is not prepared to help and cannot help and finds himself in impossible difficulties, I assure him that the Government will still have our support in putting into effect a Measure which is thoroughly good and which has much to commend it. I hope it will have the unanimous support of the House.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: In a very few words, I wish to welcome this Bill, which will remove the doubts which have existed since the Baddeley case. Retrospective legislation is generally suspect, but I do not think that anyone here would quarrel with the retrospective nature of Clause 1 (1).
There is, however, one point which I should like to raise with my right hon


and learned Friend in Clause 1 (2) (a), which reads:
the facilities are provided with the object of improving the conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended;
Will my hon. and learned Friend consider inserting during the Committee stage the words "physical, intellectual and spiritual"? The sub-paragraph would then read: "the facilities are provided with the object of improving the physical, intellectual and spiritual conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended." I suggest that such an addition would be an improvement on the existing words and would give a clearer picture of what is intended. I also welcome Clause 4, which enables the Parliament of Northern Ireland to pass similar legislation.
This is an excellent Bill, and I trust that it will rapidly pass through its various stages and become law.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: My hon. and learned Friend has been very fair to the House in making precisely clear that this is a very narrowly conceived Bill, and, within the terms in which he presented it, it is very properly and purposely so. I join with hon. Members on both sides who have welcomed the Bill and expressed their approval of its intention so far as it goes. But I venture to submit with the utmost diffidence, in view of the pressure of hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen, that the House might question the fundamental assumption of the Bill and ask itself whether it goes far enough. It is my submission that the Bill raises, but avoids, a question of the greatest importance and difficulty in the modern society that we have developed. The question is the broad fundamental one of what kind of activities should be given special fiscal privileges in a modern State.
I think the question arises because of two characteristics of the modern State. The first is that the modern State does a great deal more for the citizen than the State did in the days of Queen Elizabeth I. Secondly, it charges a great deal more for doing what it does, by way of taxes. These two characteristics have two results. The first result is that the relief from taxes—which was originally and has been continuously up to the compara-

tively recent past a small matter—is now a matter of life and death for a great many charitable organisations and organisations which regard themselves as being charitable. The second reason is that charitable activity has shifted more and more into marginal fields. It has moved, for example, from the relief of destitution to, as we see in the very Title of the Bill, recreational activities and improving the social conditions of life.
I ask the House in that context to consider with sympathy and understanding the very great difficulty that confronts many typical non-profit-making organisations which are devoted to activities generally beneficial to the public and which, because of their charitable nature, regard themselves as entitled to some relief from taxation. The alternative to which these societies have to look forward if they are not to come within an extension of our conception of charities is nothing less than extinction.
Such organisations have to ask themselves two questions. The first is whether they are a charity. That is a question of law, the answer to which is difficult to find and still more difficult to interpret. When it is found and interpreted, one is probably wrong anyway, for the journey from the Statute of Elizabeth I in 1601 through the Pemsell case to the Baddeley case is a maze of caprice, fantasy and historical humbug.
In confining the Bill to the problem of those recreational charities which have been brought within spitting distance of the Baddeley decision, the Government are missing an opportunity to face the changed circumstances of our society and to re-define their whole conception of what is a charity and what kind of organisation should be entitled to fiscal relief. They are failing to recognise a challenge which has clearly been put to them. I refer to the White Paper on Government Policy on Charitable Trusts in England and Wales which the Government published following their consideration of the Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan on the Law and Practice relating to Charitable Trusts.
The Government White Paper, referring to the Nathan Committee, said:
The Committee consider…that it would be well to provide a new statutory definition,


having much the same effect…[as] …the obsolete statute of Elizabeth I.
The White Paper went on, however, to say:
Any new definition that could be devised would be new in substance as well as in form…the choice is between leaving things as they are and adopting a new definition which is different in substance.
That is perfectly correct. A change would, in fact, involve a recognition of a change in substance in the nature of charity. The House might ask itself whether the Government were right in deciding not to accept this challenge.
It would be right also here to refer to the fact that a change was advocated by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, which stated in paragraph 175 of its Report:
We recommend that the law should be amended…for the present situation is hardly less than chaotic and the prevailing uncertainty does no credit to the tax system.
I am bound in all honesty to say that in making that recommendation that the law should be changed, the Royal Commission said that the definition of charities should be restricted and limited. With the greatest respect, however, I wonder whether we might not differ from that view too. In view of the changed social conditions and the enormous effect, far greater than before, that fiscal provisions have on charitable organisations, we might consider whether the time has not come to look again at this whole question.
It is only fair to myself to make the clear reservation that I am not maintaining that such a redefinition and change in substance would be simple to make. I recognise that great difficulties of principle would arise if we tried to draw the line afresh between what is and what is not a recognisable charitable organisation under the new dispensation. I might be led to agree that such a thing is impossible and that it might do more harm than good, but my complaint is that the Government have not tried. With the existence of so many voluntary organisations at stake, the Government really ought to have tried in the years that have passed since the publication of the Nathan Report and the Report of the Royal Commission. This is a disappointing Measure from that point of view. The Government ought not to rest on their laurels and, in their own words, leave things as they are, and

content themselves with just trimming the edges by introducing this Bill.
The second question that the charitable or near-charitable organisation has to ask itself when threatened with extinction is. having decided that it is a charity. Are we a charity for Inland Revenue purposes and are we a charity in the eyes of the local authority for rating purposes?" If I may say so, that question was put in absolutely the right perspective by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). The situation in respect of these two forms of relief from rates and taxation is that the State's right hand knoweth not what its left hand doeth. It is possible for an anomalous situation to arise whereby an organisation which is charitable for Inland Revenue purposes is not held to be a charity under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955.
Section 8 provides for a standstill period in respect of charitable organisations during which, although an organisation might be valued by the Inland Revenue at a level equal to that which it would have reached had it been an ordinary business premises, provision is made, I quote the Act, that in the case of any hereditament whose main object is charitable the amount of rate chargeable shall be limited for the first year of the new list to an amount not exceeding the total amount of rates which were charged for the last year before the new list came into force.
Therefore, an organisation which regards itself as a charity by virtue of its Inland Revenue status and wishes to take advantage of the standstill provided for it under Section 8 of the 1955 Act, has to rely upon its status being upheld in the courts. That is not happening to a great many charities at the moment. Thereby they are being put into their coffins, and nothing short of a redefinition now which will put them into the class whereby they can be held by the courts to come under the protection of the standstill of Section 8 will save them.
The appointment of the Pritchard Committee will not save them. They may well say to the Committee, "We think that we ought to be regarded as a charity and given special terms for rates", and the Committee could well say, "You are a charity and you should


be rated accordingly," but in the meantime rates will have been levied upon them. Whatever the Pritchard Committee's recommendations and whatever the House sees fit to do in line with those recommendations, I see no possibility of retrospective legislation to reduce rates legally levied, and those rates will actually kill the charities. That will be the result of the Government's decision in their wisdom not to look at the entire question of charities and decide whether, in modern conditions, a wider scope and a new statutory definition should now be introduced.
Therefore, I personally cannot welcome this Bill without expressing my disappointment that the opportunity has been missed, and expressing my regret at the casualities which rate demands now pending will cause for lack of a new, wider statutory definition of charity before the recommendations of the Pritchard Committee, if they are going to save them, can do so. It would be melodramatic to say that the Government will have the blood of these organisations on their hands, but at least the Government will have to bear the charge of having done nothing to save them. If the Government are content to extinguish these non-profit-making voluntary organisations, which may be different in scope and nature from the charities of old but are their true, historic heirs, the Government will be cutting off a continuing flow of voluntary effort for the good of the community, which is one of the things of which our nation has for so long been rightly proud.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), I rise to give the Bill a warm welcome, on the assumption that it means what I thought it meant when I read it and what I still think it means, having heard the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary introduce it. For the sake of removing doubt, I will give an example, and no doubt I shall be told if I am wrong.
I take the example of a youth club which clearly satisfies sub-paragraph (i) of subsection (2, (b) of Clause 1. Let us assume also that it satisfies paragraph (a) inasmuch as the facilities are provided with the object of improving

the conditions of life of the youths. I am also assuming that it is not prevented from ranking as a charity for Income Tax purposes as a result of the proviso to Clause 1 which refers to the public benefit. I assume that the public benefit is satisfied, although a youth club provides facilities for only a limited section of the public.
If there is any doubt about my assumption, I am sure that the rest of my speech will enable the Government to introduce any necessary Amendment in Committee. On that assumption, therefore, I give a very full welcome to the Bill. I should perhaps disclose the fact that at the moment the boys' club with which I have been closely connected for the past thirty-two years is awaiting a repayment of Income Tax suffered at source, which the Inland Revenue has held up pending the passing of this Bill. I am sure that the wholehearted welcome of all of us assembled on these benches. to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) referred. will be sufficient to persuade the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill to remove any doubt there may be.
As I understand the purpose of the Bill, it is to be commended, because this is a most important activity which is becoming more and more so as our pattern of living changes and develops. Clause 1 refers to the use of leisure time and to leisure-time occupation. It is on- of the earnest desires of hon. Members on all sides of the House, particularly on this side, that leisure-time opportunities should be increased.
The purpose of additional production is either a higher standard of living, or not quite such an increase in the standard of living but with additional leisure. Therefore, opportunities for using leisure wisely are something which our society ought to take very much into account. One is continually reminded of that by unfortunate episodes connected with young men who are called "Teddy boys." I am sure that there would be fewer of those episodes if those young men had had the good fortune to be encouraged in their early teens and had had the opportunity to go to a boys' club or youth centre in their neighbourhood to be trained in citizenship and responsibility.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North suggested that youth clubs could not possibly carry on unless the relief from taxation and the treatment as charities which was always previously meted out to them before this decision was made were continued. I very much hope that the Attorney-General will be able to confirm that a youth club which was a charity and which would so he treated but for the decision in the Baddeley case will, as a result of the Bill, once more be treated as a charity.
Notwithstanding what I have said, I support the Government in the view that the door through which an organisation must go to be ranked as a charity should not be opened too wide. I support the view that the rôle of a charity is a very honourable one, but that it would not be in the best interests of our society for near-charities and non-profit-making organisations to be included—and which one of us is not associated with one or many of them and which one of us would not wish that we could have the benefit of a seven-year deed of covenant in favour of our own non-profit-making society and solve all our problems as treasurer and so on? None the less, the definition gained by practice and laid down by Statute is right and proper.
I am sure that the need for youth clubs will not be disputed. I am sure that there are many hon. Members whose association has been as great or greater than mine; but I feel that we should realise that those who attend youth clubs, whether as members or as managers, derive a benefit which is lasting and which is of enormous benefit to society as a whole. They have a stabilising effect and an effect on the training of character which only those who have had the good fortune to participate in and to be connected with the management of a boys' club can fully understand.
I wish it were possible for Members to come to a function which takes place every second year when some 400 old boys, ex-members of a boys' club in the East End of London, now between the ages of 25 and 50, assemble for the pleasure of seeing one another and for the pleasure of paying tribute to those who assisted them.
I am sure that what I have said is acceptable to the House, and I am sure that the Attorney-General will confirm

that what I have understood is correct and that the Bill will receive the welcome which we all wish to extend to it.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Philip Bell: In the course of his remarks the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said that the drafting of the Bill must have presented a terrifying task to my right hon. and learned Friends. I do not know whether it terrified them, but the draft that they have produced has profoundly disturbed me, both in principle and language. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester upon his interest in boys' clubs, but I should require a good deal of shaking from my conviction that the sort of boys' club to which he gives such useful service is not already treated as a charity.
It is a matter of regret that we have not the advantage—if it be an advantage —of more lawyers to speak in the debate, although I agree that we have some honorary lawyers. As everybody knows, the subject of charities is a difficult one, and it is impossible to understand the Bill without some basic knowledge of the law of charity which has grown up for four hundred years. The hon. Member said that he did not agree that any non-profit-making society, which is good fun and offers good companionship, should have the advantages of a charity, and I believe that that is true. It is useless to give a privileged position to everybody, for it is at the expense of somebody else.
What is the position about charities with which the Bill, in a confused way—as I see it—attempts to deal? As defined and elucidated by decisions, charities are grouped into four classes. The House will excuse me if I appear to be lecturing it, but there are no other lecturers here. The four classes of charity relate to the relief of poverty, the advancement of religion, education, and one other purpose to which I shall refer later. In the case of education, religion and poverty, it is possible to devote the charitable funds to a certain part of the community. It could be provided that the boys at Eton should be educated, but it is still a charity. It could be provided that the funds should go exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church, but it is still a charity. In each of the three classes to which I have referred the beneficiaries


could be defined, but in the case of the fourth class that was not allowed.
In that case, the charity had to be for other purposes which were beneficial, not to a section of the community, but to the community as a whole, or a substantial part of it; and the purposes had to be analogous to those mentioned in the Statute of Elizabeth. Not everything that was for the benefit of the community in a vague and jolly sort of way came within that description; there had to be some practical benefit for the community or some part of it, or it had to be for public purposes instead of private purposes. One of the legal text writers said, in a discouraging way, that the question whether a purpose was a public or a private one was practically incapable of distinction. At any rate, such a charity had to be of general public utility.
Perhaps I may depress hon. Members opposite by giving them a few examples. A gift to encourage Conservative principles, combined with mental and moral improvements, is held to be a good charity; but something to encourage the Primrose League is not. The charity must have an educational element. But a gift for some recreational purpose for the inhabitants of a certain borough or town, even if it is in order to play netball or hockey, it is a good charity because the public are concerned. But a similar gift to a trade union is not, because the public are not concerned and it is not religious, educational, or for the relief of poverty. A gift to a subscriber's library has been held not to be a charity, for it was for the benefit of subscribers, and a gift for encouraging football or cricket was held to be not charitable because it did not benefit the public in a practical way.
That, briefly, is how the law stood. In three departments one could select one's beneficiaries. The theory was that it was so obviously to the advantage of the community to have some people religious, some relieved from poverty and some educated that it did not matter if the charity was not spread among the masses of the community. But if one got outside the three departments, one had to see that it had some public benefit, not necessarily national, that it was indiscriminate for all the people and not restricted to membership of a particular body.
A good deal has been said about the Baddeley case. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend, who had the advantage of taking part in that case—I have the record here to check him—would explain it to me. As I understand it, it was a gift of land on rather curious terms for the promotion of the religious, social and physical well-being of residents of West Ham and Leyton and for the use of persons likely to become members of the Methodist Church and of insufficient means otherwise to enjoy those facilities—a pretty complicated trust whichever way one looks at it.
Mr. Geoffrey Cross, a learned colleague of mine, argued that this trust was not exclusively for the benefit of religious education or the relief of poverty alone. It was a mixture. He went further and said that it was not for the benefit of the public because it was for a section of the public, namely, potential Methodists.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, "I ask the Court to regard those trusts as educational because the promotion of well-being is, in fact, itself educational." He made no reference to the fact, according to the Report, that the trust was not, in fact, for the public, but for a limited section of it.
I ask the House to bear with me for a moment. Remember that one can have a trust for religion, for Methodists, but it is not for the public if one restricts it to potential Methodists, though, oddly enough, one can restrict it to members of Little Puddlington. The court did not decide that physical training was or was not a charitable trust. What it decided was that the words used were so vague that the moneys or the property could be used for purposes which were non-charitable, that is social, and that the trusts were not educational in the sense of the law. It did not decide anything more. It did not decide that it was a terrible thing that recreation was not a charity. It did not say that at all.
It would manifestly have been a good trust had it been for the recreation of the inhabitants of that area. There was a good deal of authority for that. All that the court decided was that the words were too vague. It is true that Lord Simmons went on to say that he thought there was no benefit to the


public. He said, I think, that it was for the public benefit to build a bridge. That is one of the things which is a charitable business, but to build a bridge exclusively for the use of the Methodists is not regarded as a public purpose. Indeed, both Lord Simmons and Lord Reid said that if there had been a trust for recreation grounds for the use of the inhabitants, it would have been good.
Somebody may understand—I confess that I do not the preamble to this Statute to the effect that it was to alter the decision in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Baddeley. All I can say is that if that case went back to the court on this Bill the court would still say that it was too vague, and it might say that it was not to the benefit of the public. I confess that I do not understand that reference.
Now let us look at the Bill for a moment, bearing in mind what the Master of the Rolls said when he was trying to consider the meaning of the phrase "social welfare." He said—he was a generous man—that Parliament must at least have assumed a certain precision of meaning, but even it had not seen fit to offer any clue for the guidance of the judges.
Let us look at the clues in the Bill. Clause 1 (1) reads:
…it shall be and be deemed always to have been charitable to provide, or assist in the provision of, facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation, if the facilities are provided…
There let us stop. It goes on:
…in the interests of social welfare…
The reason why I said that we should stop there is that if the words had been "for the public benefit" if they read "the provision of recreation or leisure-time facilities for the public benefit," for example, the provision of recreation grounds in a locality, it would already be a charity. But the words are:
…in the interests of social welfare…
We get a clue about what is meant in subsection (2), which says that the facilities are provided:
…with the object of improving the conditions of life…
We often hear of "living conditions". We are asked what living conditions are like in Russia or France. What does "conditions of life" mean? Is the

meaning that facilities are to be provided for improving the conditions of life? Does it improve my "condition of life" if a football ground is provided for me? It might improve something but which— "conditions of life" or my "living conditions"? Suppose a village hall seeks permission for rock 'n' roll to take place. Is that what we mean by "conditions of life"? It is nonsense! When we talk about conditions of life and living conditions we mean food, shelter and clothing, real things which are the real objects of charity.
The confusion does not stop there. When we try to find out something more about social welfare, which is to improve whatever the conditions of life may be, who are the people who are to be helped? They include youth. In respect of education and relief of poverty, they have always been an object of the law. Is it really desired that special facilities should be devoted—at public expense, for ultimately it conies to that—to the relief of the youth of rich people? Rich people also like to be richer and to have their conditions of life improved.
The Clause continues:
.. age, infirmity or disablement, poverty or social and economic circumstances…
Most of these are already the objects of charity. We do not need any new rule to say that facilities provided for them would be charity. But think of the extraordinary words "social and economic circumstances". They mean "persons who have need of these facilities for social or economic circumstances". "The poor" I could understand but what does "social or economic circumstances" cover? Does "social circumstances" cover someone with a need to belong to a bridge club? Does "economic circumstances" cover someone with a need to join a hunt but whose economic circumstances do not permit it? Those things would certainly improve the conditions of life of such people. This Clause goes too far. Finally, we have the stop-gap—an alternative—the public at large!
Who can say whether this Measure would have made a difference in the Baddeley case? Would it have been said that the trust was less confused? Would it have been found to improve the "conditions of life"? Who were the people who would have benefited by it? I think they would in any case have been caught by the proviso to subsection (1) in that


it could not be proved to be in the interests of public welfare.
What is the principle behind this Bill? It is to extend, if it means anything—and I have some doubts about that—the provision of a new class of charitable trust. That is not done for nothing. Money does not fall out of the sky. If somebody pays less taxes today—which charities do, and nobody grudges that—someone else pays more. We all pay for this charity. Do we want to equate social welfare with charity as it has been known? Do we think the desirable in life should be equated with the essential things? The words now used are getting so vague and embracing that they will include what the hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not want included, all non-profit making activities.
The words "social welfare" are a delusion which also bedevil the Rating and Valuation Act and the Copyright Act. To take an example. In a recent case the Nurses' Register claimed exemption from rates and it was ruled that nurses were not concerned with social welfare and could not get any relief. It was held in a case immediately afterwards that the Derbyshire Miners' Welfare Holiday Camp should get relief from rates. I am not complaining particularly about that, but it shows inconsistency. The nurses who are not concerned directly but indirectly with welfare get no relief because it is said that they were not concerned with social welfare, but the miners' home gets it. The court said in the nurses' case that there must be a concept of fulfilling a social obligation towards a community whose living conditions are inadequate. That was the idea of social welfare, and I do not begrudge it. But no one suggests today, whatever might have been the case in the past, that the living conditions of miners are inadequate and that providing them with a home is fulfilling a social obligation to them.
The Copyright Act uses the same words. It states that no copyright fee shall be chargeable on a gramophone record if it is played as part of the activities of an organisation whose main object is social welfare. How is "social welfare" to be interpreted? Is it to be interpreted, as in this Bill, by the people who are the objects of social welfare, and, if not, why not? Is it to be interpreted in the

revised Baddeley sense, that we have not to confine it to Methodists? Can miners play a record at a social in their holiday home without paying a copyright fee, but if the nurses who belong to the Nurses' Register arrange a little dance they have to pay a fee for the gramophone records which they play?
This Bill is adding confusion to a confused part of the law. It should try to establish what is meant by public benefit and give a clue, as the Master of the Rolls asked, to the meaning of the words "social welfare." I should have liked the House to consider this at some length and had a longer debate to thresh out this vital question—whether in the end we are not going to destroy the conception of charity by making the objects so extensive that we shall dry up the wells of charity. I have the gravest doubts about this Bill.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: This is a valuable Bill which obviously will be welcomed by a great range of charitable organisations whose status is now in peril. To that extent I am sure that we all welcome it and wish it to be given an unopposed Second Reading.
At the same time, the Joint Under-Secretary of State has pointed out that this is the first opportunity we have had since the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, to consider this subject in the House. It is perhaps a pity that we are trying to deal with a Bill of this importance at this hour of the night. I wish, in the circumstances, only to associate myself very largely with the remarks which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) made about some of the difficulties which are bound to arise in relation to the Bill as it now stands. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to deal with the point which was raised about the way in which the Bill will link up with the position under the rating law and with the definition of social welfare in the Copyright Act. I am sure that we all feel that it is very important that at some stage the rating and the Income Tax law should march together, and inevitably the Pritchard Committee must be affected by the definition of social welfare in the Bill.
Those of us who are lawyers are well aware of the great difficulty which the courts have had in interpreting social welfare under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. I feel that those difficulties will remain even under the definition of social welfare in this Bill, and even if this definition or something like it is imported into rating law. Possibly these are matters which can best be dealt with in Committee, and so for the moment I merely propose to raise general doubts about the position.
The Bill contains a number of new expressions which it is difficult to define, such as "recreation or other leisure-time occupation" and "improving the conditions of life". For example, what will be the position of a coffee bar with rock-'n'-roll facilities provided for youths under 21, even if it is conducted for profit? It is notable that in this Clause, as distinct from Section 8, there is no reservation about "not established or conducted for profit". Presumably if it were just a coffee bar it might not be "recreational facilities", but does the provision of rock-'n'-roll facilities improve the conditions of life of young people? It seems to me that these are vague phrases which we shall have to clarify further if we are to resolve the difficulties which I think will arise out of the definition of social welfare as now set out.
It is unfortunate that the Bill deals only with one of the two sets of difficulties which arose in the Baddeley case, the facts of which have been explained by my hon. and learned Friend. In my respectful submission it is by no means clear in relation to that case what the decision would have been if the sole point at issue had been whether the beneficiaries constituted a sufficient class to satisfy the necessity of a benefit to the public. There was certainly a divergence of opinion on that point, and while I agree that undoubtedly it would be unwise in a Bill of this kind to interfere unduly with the existing law, I had hoped that it would be possible to attempt some clarification of what constitutes a sufficient class to satisfy the test of public benefit.
I am emboldened to make that suggestion by the fact that although under the existing law employees of a particular firm have been held not to con-

stitute a sufficient class, the special position of miners' welfare trusts is confirmed in Clause 2 and, as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) pointed out, the very fact that the specific provision is made in respect of miners' welfare trusts implies that everything else is probably out, not only under the definition of "charitable" but probably under the definition of "social welfare" for the purpose of this Bill and of Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955.
Moreover, quite apart from that, there is a very novel change in the law—already commented upon in another place—in relation to women's organisations. I do not dissent from the proposition that something should be done to safeguard the position of women's institutes, but I am not sure that this is the best way to do it. It is preferable to lay down a general principle than to enumerate all the types of organisation which might qualify for relief; but since we have made an exception in the case of miners' welfare trusts, it might be better to deal with these by way of specific exceptions for women's institutes and similar organisations. The alternative is to deal with the other difficult point raised in the Baddeley case, namely, what constitutes a sufficient class to satisfy the criterion of public benefit.

10.51 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The debate has covered a fairly wide field. Criticism came mainly from Government benches and it was mostly with regard to drafting, asking for more precision.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) treated us to a rather elementary lecture to start off on the law of charity, and has managed to get the first two classes right. He seemed to be in a little doubt about the other two. I do not think that was very helpful in the consideration of the Bill.
Then my hon. and learned Friend went on to discuss the Baddeley case. I am not going to deliver a lecture to him on what that case decided. I commend it to him for further study; but I will say that one of the difficulties that resulted from that case was that the terms of the trust deed under consideration in that case so closely resembled the terms of many


trust deeds of all kinds of institutions which had, prior to that decision, been regarded as charitable institutions without any doubt at all, that the Government felt that the position of uncertainty created over a wide field could not be allowed to rest.
There were two possible ways of tackling the problem. One was that suggested tentatively in regard to women's institutes by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), that we should follow the specific reference to miners' welfare trusts by references to women's institutes and perhaps to other things as well. The difficulty about that is that if we tried to make a list of all the different types of charitable institution, regarded as such before the case, and which have similar terms in their trust needs, it would almost certainly not be complete.
We considered it very seriously indeed, and rejected it. Our endeavour was to find a formula which would rectify the position with regard to those charities whose position was placed in doubt by the Baddeley decision, without enlarging the field of charity. It was no easy task to find a form of words which would bring about that result and which would not be easily criticised, by my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bolton. East, for example I think my hon. and learned Friend would find it very difficult, when he really applied his mind to this problem, to find any form of words which would achieve that object more satisfactorily than the words here.
The words "social welfare" have been subjected to the consideration of the courts on a number of occasions. The words appear in many trust deeds and many Acts of Parliament, and a body of case law has been built up in regard to them. It has been said that there should be a clue for the guidance of judges; the clue is here, in Clause 1, subsections (2) and (3). Without seeking to limit the category of institution it gives a general colour to the content of the Clause and will, in my opinion, be helpful with regard to its interpretation.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), whom I thank for giving a very warm welcome indeed to the Bill and with whose commendations of my hon. and learned Friend's introductory

observations I would respectfully wish to associate myself, raised a question with regard to Clause 2. One reason that there has to be a special reference to miners' welfare trusts declared before 17th December, 1957, is that, if we do not make that specific reference, they clearly will not be able to bring themselves within Clause 1, the reason for that being that those trusts not only cover recreational and social activities held in the Baddeley case to be not charitable—but so often they are limited to miners only or to particular pits which were, before nationalisation, owned by individual companies. For those trusts, special provision is, therefore, made. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that any new trust created under the Act will have to come within Clause 1 to be held charitable.
It is the case—here I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond)—that it is is a principle running through the whole subject that these trusts must be for the public benefit. As regards new trusts, it may be that their terms will have to be somewhat wider than we have seen hitherto, in order to ensure that such trusts are within Clause 1 and are treated as charities. But that is not really changing the law; it is, rather, making these new trusts conform more accurately to what has always been regarded as the law in relation to charities.
A question was asked about rating. The Bill as it stands has no impact on rating law. If it operates as we hope and believe it will, its only effect will be to make it certain that those institutions which were regarded as charitable before the Baddeley decision will, despite that decision, continue to be treated as charities. I do not think that local authorities have any reason to suppose that the passage of the Bill will lead to their losing rates from buildings in respect of which, before the Baddeley decision, they were able to derive rates on the ground that they were buildings of non-charitable institutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham) suggested a drafting amendment to Clause 1 (2, a) by the insertion before "conditions of life" of the words "physical, intellectual and spiritual". I think that


he will, on reflection, probably agree that those would be words of limitation. The paragraph would then mean that, to come within its terms, the object of the trust would have to be not only the improvement of the physical, but also the intellectual and the spiritual conditions of life. The object would have to serve all three purposes, which would, I think, be unduly restrictive of the scope and intent of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) made a somewhat lengthy speech, but I see that he has not waited for me to reply to it, so that I need say only that he complained that the Government have not tried to find a new definition of the word "charity". I fear that he cannot have listened to my hon. and learned Friend's speech in full, because that made it quite clear that the Government had considered this matter and in our White Paper on Policy on Charitable Trusts, issued in 1955, it was declared that it was our intention not to enact a new definition of "charity", but to preserve the existing case law. If one tried to make a new definition of the word "charity", the real beneficiaries of any new definition would be the members of my profession and the other branch of the profession and for those reasons I need say no more than that I am against attempting it.
This was a difficult Bill to draft and I agree that it is a difficult Bill to understand. I am glad that it has been so generally welcomed. I do not think that one can add precision to it in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South suggested, because once one seeks to define some of these words with more precision, the result may be to defeat the object of the Bill and to exclude from treatment as a charitable institution some of those institutions which, for years until the decision in the Baddeley case, have been regarded as charitable without doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Committee Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

RECREATIONAL CHARITIES

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to declare charitable under the law of England and Wales the provision in the interests of social welfare of facilities for recreation or other leisure time occupation, to make similar provision as to certain trusts heretofore established for carrying out social welfare activities within the meaning of the Miners' Welfare Act, 1952, to enable laws for corresponding purposes to be passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise any incidental charge to income tax which that Act may impose on persons making payments to trusts of any description which is, in England and Wales, to be treated as charitable under that Act (including any such charge for a past year of assessment).—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow,

BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (CONSUMER PROTECTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young,]

11.3 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: On 21st January, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, replying to me and referring to the grant given to the British Standards Institution, said:
In addition to this general grant, the Board of Trade has in the current financial year given the British Standards Institution £10,000 specifically for the extension of its work on consumer protection: this now includes 'Shopper's Guide'. It is for the Institution to decide the best way of promoting the success of this publication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1958; Vol. 580, c. 881.]
In its second annual report, the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution referred to the fact that the taxpayer had contributed £10,000 towards its costs. Tonight I want to explore whether we have received the best value for money with that £10,000.
I believe that we have not and that that is the fault, not of the B.S.I., but of the Government. I have always believed that this Consumer Advisory Council was set up by the Government as a sop to public opinion. That, of course, was before the Parliamentary Secretary was appointed to his present office.
Going back to September, 1954, I remember when the public was told that the British Standards Institution would set up the Consumer Advisory Council, and I can see the headlines now which said that we were to have a new deal for shoppers. We were told that 24 men and women were to form the Council and the public really believed that the shoppers would not only get value for money, but that they would have their complaints dealt with if that was not the case. Certainly, there was plenty for the Council to do. But alas for the shoppers' hopes.
The news of that Council did not get a very good Press. All the same, it was not easy to get letters of criticism published. As a result, we had a long period of silence and the excitement of the shoppers died down. Then, I remember very distinctly my own disappointment—I would say, even, disgust—when I read an announcement to the effect that the chief task of the Council would be to let the manufacturers know what the consumer needed. That more than anything else proved that this was indeed a sop to public opinion from the Government, because that was what some of us in the House, and some organisations outside, had been telling the manufacturers for a long time. What we wanted to know, and what the shoppers wanted to know, was what the Council would do about it.
In January, 1955, the names were announced. I do not propose to give them now but, generally speaking, there was, and there is, a wealth of experience on the Council. It is fair to say that it was drawn from the retail stores, from economics, publicity, journalism and the women's organisations. We wondered at the time why people like these should submit to nothing more ambitious than telling the manufacturer what the con sumer needed. I believe that the reason was obvious and I think that the Council had taken legal advice. That legal

advice confirmed my worst fears that the Council had no powers whatever.
From 1952 to 1954, some of us had fought the Government on the matter of consumer protection. We were helped considerably by organisations outside the House. I should mention particularly the Retail Trading Standards Association. To begin with, we got very little support from either side of the House, but eventually we were proved right, so much so that the Government had to act or, at least, they had to appear to act. So we got the Consumer Advisory Council. Since 1955, I have fought hard on this matter, because I believed then, as I believe now, that this Consumer Advisory Council is Government eyewash and completely ineffective. I think I have been proved right.
I should like to refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the letter from Miss Marghanita Laski in The Times of 25th November last, in which she said:
…when I joined the Consumer Advisory Council on its formation in January, 1955, I believed wholly in voluntary methods. But since then, none of the industries asked by the Council for Kitemark Schemes has agreed to one; and the children's footwear manufacturers, to whom you refer in your article, have positively refused.
On 12th December, 1957, the President of the Board of Trade actually made an admission. It was not, of course, an answer that I wanted, but one is cheered when a little bit of sustenance comes from the Board of Trade. In answer to a Question of mine, the President of the Board of Trade said:
The Advisory Council is disappointed with the response of some manufacturers to its proposals…
That was a very great admission coming from the Board of Trade, but the President went on to say:
I think that the first job of the Council, assisted by the hon. Lady, is to make the public aware of what Kitemark schemes are."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1411–12.]
I would only say—if it is not immodest to do so—that I have tried to play my part in this matter.
What is the British Standards Institution to do if manufacturers are not prepared to co-operate in these matters? It has been my contention all along that the Institution has been given an impossible task, and for that fact I blame the Government. In a letter in The


Times on 30th October—I was not going into the question of legislation, with respect, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I was listening with care to the hon. Lady, as I always do.

Miss Burton: I was about to quote a small section from the letter that I wrote to Thr Times on the question of what happens when the manufacturers are not prepared to co-operate? I said:
two of the most flagrant examples are children's shoes and carpets. People studying consumer complaints have said for some time now that carpets are the main worry, yet, to quote a Sunday paper of 20th October 'A mistake in buying a carpet can be expensive. There are no manufacturers' guarantees, few fixed retail prices, too few labels, and too many bedevilling technical terms'.
I have asked the Board of Trade repeatedly how we can obtain a decent standard of merchandise when the vast majority of manufacturers have to agree. Under those conditions how is it possible to obtain one at all?
As an example of the first point, some standards are too low, and as an example of the second, I have mentioned the position in regard to carpets and shoes. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary consider first, having a standard of quality worth having and not based on minimum specifications? Secondly, if we have a standard worth having, some manufacturers will have to be excluded because their standards will be too low.
I want to ask the Minister three short questions. First, would the Board of Trade be prepared to invite general proposals for quality standards in merchandise? Secondly, would it agree that the Institution shall not be tied to waiting for a majority of manufacturers to agree a standard? Thirdly, would it publicise—and I really mean publicise—any industry which refuses co-operation, so that the public may know?
I want to make one more point before I turn to the "Shopper's Guide." Will the Board of Trade consider the fact that today anyone can issue a certificate of quality for goods? I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary knows that these unofficial quality marks may offer some safeguard to shoppers, but if test criteria are not revealed, and the samples are merely those specially provided by the maker, we often get a pig in a poke. Sometimes makers use these certificates

quite regardless of what they mean. One of the best examples that I have heard concerns a firm displaying its wares as tested by XYZ, which was true —but the whole truth was that they had been tested by XYZ and failed by them. That example was taken from an excellent article in the Observer of 29th December last, to which I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention.
I now turn to the "Shopper's Guide." Here I am asking for enlightenment. The Parliamentary Secretary told me, on 21st January, that the additional money granted for consumer protection, included "Shopper's Guide," and he went on:
It is for the Institution to decide the best way of promoting the success of this publication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1958; Vol. 580, c. 881.]
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is to do that by going out of business. "Shopper's Guide" has had three issues, and I offer those responsible my congratulations on those issues, but if we are honest we must admit that "Shopper's Guide" and the other magazines of the same kind cannot make adequate comparisons for the general public because of the law of libel.
This question has been raised in the House on many occasions, and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can help any more tonight. The Board of Trade, the Institution and I have sought counsel's opinion in this matter, and it seems that it is possible to have these magazines on the bookstalls; but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the magazines are not on the bookstalls.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the B.B.C., and much less Independent Television because of its advertising interests, will be able to give comparisons—real, live comparisons? Secondly, are the Government or the Board of Trade prepared to back the British Standards Institution with costs in any legal action which might be brought against the Institution if the "Shopper's Guide" were made available to the general public at bookstalls? Will the Government say this publicly? I have always believed that this whole question of consumer protection should be a public service, and not one financed by subscription.
Now I come, in conclusion, to the Consumer Research Association and its


publication. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for this, but there is a good deal here which I, and many others, just do not understand. I mention this because the Parliamentary Secretary has told me that it was for the British Standards Institution to decide the best way of promoting the success of its own publication, "Shopper's Guide," but I should like to quote, briefly, just three extracts from The Times dated 9th January last. There was a column headed "Consumer Research Association" and underneath that it was stated, "Proposal for Merger." The extracts which I should like to read are:
A proposal has been made by the Association for Consumer Research for amalgamation with the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution, and this will soon be discussed by the councils on both sides.
Dr. Michael Young, chairman of the council of the Association for Consumer Research, said yesterday:
'A proposal has been made by the Association to the British Standards Institution that the setting up of a new and completely independent body, as an amalgamation of the Association and the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution should be considered.'
Apparently, the proposal for an amalgamation was first mooted early in December, and it has been mentioned at a meeting of the British Standards Institution council.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, as the Consumer Advisory Council, and the "Shopper's Guide," receive a grant from the Government, the British Standards Institution is empowered to discuss such a merger. Would the staff of the Institution be affected?
I, personally, have joined both organisations and wish them well. In fact, I have always envisaged that the two magazines would doubtless come together in some way after some time had elapsed because, after all, they are trying to do the same job; but I regard it as quite extraordinary that such a merger should be so far advanced when the British Standards Institution had published only two issues of "Shopper's Guide," and the Consumer Research Association only one issue of "Which," as was the case in December.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, and all the subscribers who have joined both organisations, what is going on? I have tried to be very quick, but

I should like to ask, as a summary, these six questions of the Board of Trade. First, will it look at the problem of quality standards in merchandise; secondly, will it agree that the British Standards Institution should not be tied to waiting for a majority of manufacturers to agree a standard; thirdly, will it publicise any industry and its manufacturers where co-operation with the British Standards Institution is refused; fourthly, will it look at the whole question of unofficial quality marks; fifthly, will it give financial backing to the British Standards Institution should any legal action arise subsequent upon "Shopper's Guide" being available to the general public on the bookstalls; and, lastly. what is the position concerning the proposed merger of the Consumer Advisory Council and "Shopper's Guide" with the Consumer Research Association?

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has raised a number of important and interesting points in regard to the important field of consumer protection. She referred particularly to the work which the British Standards Institution has promoted in this field. As I think the hon. Lady knows full well, it is an object which has interested me a very great deal during the sixteen months that I have been at the Board of Trade.
I know the hon. Lady well enough to realise that she is capable of putting a great number of questions in a very short space of time, questions which she knows as well as I it would take far more than the few minutes available to reply to in full. I will, however, by condensing some of my replies, endeavour to cover roughly the whole of the wide field which she has covered in a very interesting speech of some quarter of an hour's length.
The first thing I should like to explain to the hon. Lady is that the British Standards Institution is an independent body. The Government do not run it. It is a grant-aided body. The Government make available a certain amount of money to it each year, but the Institution itself is responsible for the way in which it conducts its affairs. Therefore, it is not for the Board of Trade to go


along and tell the Institution exactly what it is to do from day to day.
I should like to make quite plain that the money for the Institution comes not just from the Government, but also from outside subscriptions, and these are very substantial. Therefore, it is only right that the Institution should maintain an independent outlook over the whole field of its operations.
The main Government grant to the B.S.I. is matched with industrial contributions in the previous year, subject to a maximum—£130,000 in 1956–57, £140,000 in 1957–58 and £150,000 in 1958–59. I am glad to say that the industrial contributions have been so high that in the last two financial years, as previously, the maximum Government grant has been earned. Therefore, the industrial subscriber has a very substantial say on how the Institution shall spend its money.
In 1957–58, the B.S.I. was granted an additional £10,000 solely for the expansion of its work for the domestic consumer, and this was not related to industrial subscriptions. I am sorry that the hon. Lady thought fit to describe this subscription by the Government as "merely a sop". It was intended to assist in the work which the B.S.I. was developing, and I think that the money has been very well and very usefully spent. I do not think that the hon. Lady helps the cause of the B.S.I. consumer protection work by denigrating it in the House. It is doing a lot of very good work. Much of it may not attract the public eye, but that does not reduce the importance of what it is trying to achieve.
Subject to Parliamentary approval—and I hope that the news which I am about to give the hon. Lady will encourage her—it is proposed to make a Government grant in aid of £10,000 in 1958–59, that is to say, in the coming year, towards the cost of the Institution's work on behalf of the domestic consumer, in addition to the grant-in-aid for the general work of the Institution which, it has already been agreed, shall be a maximum of £150,000. Therefore, we look forward to a continuance of the work of the Institution in the consumer field.
I will now try to answer briefly all the specific points put to me with regard to it. The hon. Lady talked about stan-

dards, whether they were high enough and whether manufacturers were being sufficiently co-operative. I rather detected a certain hint as though the hon. Lady would like to see compulsion introduced. But, of course, as she realises, compulsion would require legislation. The hon. Lady wisely kept the matter in the bounds of order by not going too far along the road of compulsion.
We would all like to see an extension of the Kitemark, but it would be a mistake to make it compulsory. The best way to bring about an extension of its use is for people to look for the Kitemark and to ask for Kitemarked goods. In this way, pressure could be brought to hear through the retailers, who, in turn, would urge manufacturers to bring more products within the scheme. Moreover, compulsion on consumer goods would be directly contrary to two of the most important principles governing the highly successful work of the B.S.I. on industrial goods, namely, that the use of their standards is entirely voluntary, and that standards should be issued only on a majority support from the interested parties.
I do not believe it would be right to depart from those two principles, which have proved so successful, nor do I think that a standard which was acceptable only to a small minority would really be worth publishing, because it would be used to a limited extent. Indeed, it might endanger a great deal of the work which the B.S.I. has already done if it were to depart from a practice which has been proved by the test of time.
The hon. Lady suggested that the Board of Trade should publicise any industry which refused co-operation. What good would that do? Co-operation must by its very nature remain voluntary. One cannot have such a thing as compulsory co-operation. I do not think it would be right for the Board of Trade to appear in the rôle of a whipping boy, whipping on reluctant industries into a form of co-operation which, for what might appear to them to be very good reasons, they did not wish to bring about.
The hon. Lady referred to an article in a Sunday newspaper which appeared on 29th December. I have read it with great interest. In the article a comparison was made between the B.S.I.


Kitemark with its published standards and the non-statutory marks issued by some private individuals and organisations, and some reference was also made to so-called quality labels and certificates. I am in rather a difficulty here, as I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate, because since the article was published its author and the paper which printed it have received writs for libel, and it would, therefore, clearly be inappropriate for me to make any comment at all at this stage.
While it would be out of order to discuss the possibility of legislation to limit the right to issue certificates of quality, I should like to make clear the present legal position. This is that misleading claims to most of the ascertainable characteristics of goods, such as fastness of colour or size, can already be dealt with under the Merchandise Marks Acts, whereas, on the other hand, vague claims of quality, such as "This is a better soap", or "Blank's blades are best", are not covered by existing legislation; and, indeed, it is difficult to see how any legislation which did not unreasonably limit advertisers could be made to cover such vague claims. To summarise: where the claims are specific they can be tested by means of the provisions of existing legislation; where they are vague their very vagueness makes them incapable of precise definition, and so I think it would indeed be better to leave that field to the judgment of the shopper herself.
The hon. Lady referred to "Shopper's Guide" and would like me to go along with her in certain proposals about the position of "Shopper's Guide" in the event of an action. I must make it plain to her that it would be quite impracticable for the Board of Trade to guarantee the costs of any action which might result. That must be a matter for the judgment, discretion and good sense of the B.S.I. itself. It must decide to what extent it is prepared—similar bodies must do likewise—to run the risk of bringing itself into court and must have due regard to the proper consequences, with the aid of such legal advice as it thinks appropriate to employ.
I should like to make it clear that it is not the fear of a libel action by manufacturers which prevents the B.S.I. from

putting "Shopper's Guide" on general sale. As a matter of policy, the B.S.I. prefers to rely on direct distribution to associates. I was glad to learn that the hon. Lady was an associate. It is entirely a matter for it to decide how best to distribute its guide. On the point of law I am informed that if a libellous statement appeared in "Shopper's Guide", the fact that it has been distributed to associates only would not tie any real protection.
Finally, the hon. Lady raised the question of a suggested merger between ale Consumer Advisory Council of the B.S.I. and the Association of Consumer Research. I suggest that the hon. Lady is "jumping the gun" and looking too far ahead. An approach was made by the newer of the two bodies, by the managing director, I think he is called, of the organisation producing "Which" who, after only two issues, has suggested a merger. Because The Times takes it up, there is no reason to suppose that a merger must necessarily take place or that it would necessarily be a good thing. Equally, I am not saying that it would be a bad thing.
The point is that formal discussions have not taken place between the two bodies, and I am sure it would be inappropriate for me to comment on an idea which is still the subject of preliminary discussions within each body. It may be that these discussions will lead to some new development. If so, naturally, we shall be interested to learn what is proposed. In the meantime I do not think we should look seriously on this question of a merger, certainly no in Parliament itself. One does not start planning a wedding because two young people—and both these bodies are still young—are thoughtfully looking at a bunch of mistletoe.
We can continue to examine the good work which the B.S.I. organisation is doing. The appearance of "Which" will undoubtedly serve to stimulate further activity by both bodies; and we can remain confident that the work of consumer protection which receives a Government grant of quite a substantial size will go forward with increasing momentum during the coming year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.